alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.4
 
                [Goldman, Sachs & Co. Letterhead Appears Here]
 
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
 
June 18, 1998
 
Board of Directors
XTRA Corporation
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109-1826
 
Re: Proxy Statement of XTRA Corporation; Registration Statement
 
Gentlemen:
 
Attached is our opinion letter dated June 18, 1998, with respect to the
fairness from a financial point of view to the holders of the outstanding
shares of common stock, par value $0.50 per share (the "Shares"), of XTRA
Corporation (the "Company") of the aggregate consideration to be received by
the holders pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Recapitalization,
dated June 18, 1998, by and between Wheels MergerCo LLC ("MergeCo"), a limited
liability company organized at the direction of Apollo Management, L.P. and
its investing affiliates, and the Company (the "Agreement"). The Agreement
provides for the merger of MergeCo with and into the Company pursuant to which
each holder of a Share shall be entitled either (i) to retain such Share or
(ii) to receive $65.00 in cash for such Share, subject to certain election and
proration procedures set forth in the Agreement, as to which we express no
view.
 
The foregoing opinion letter is provided for the information and assistance of
the Board of Directors of the Company in connection with its consideration of
the transaction contemplated therein and may not be disclosed to any third
party or used, circulated, quoted or otherwise referred to for any other
purpose, nor may it be filed with, included in or referred to in whole or in
part in any registration statement, proxy statement or any other document,
except in accordance with our prior written consent. We understand that the
Company has determined to include our opinion in the above-referenced Proxy
Statement and Registration Statement.
 
In that regard, we hereby consent to the reference to the opinion of our Firm
under the captions "SUMMARY--The Merger," "THE MERGER--Background of the
Merger," "THE MERGER--Recommendation of the Board of Directors," "THE MERGER--
Reasons for the Merger," and "THE MERGER--Opinion of the Company's Financial
Advisor" and to the inclusion of the foregoing opinion in the above-mentioned
Proxy Statement included in the above-mentioned Registration Statement. In
giving such consent, we do not thereby admit that we come within the category
of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, or the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange
Commission thereunder.
 
Very truly yours,
 
/s/ Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

       KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Gene W. Schneider and J. Timothy Bryan, and each
of them, his or her attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution, for him
or her in any and all capacities, to sign the fiscal year 1997 annual report on
Form 10-K of United International Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Commission"), and all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all
exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Commission; granting unto said attorneys-in-fact full power and authority to
perform any other act on behalf of the undersigned required to be done in the
premises, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

<TABLE>
<S>                          <C>
Date:  May 28, 1997          /s/ Gene W. Schneider
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------
                             Gene W. Schneider

Date:  May 27, 1997          /s/  Albert M. Carollo
                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Albert M. Carollo

Date:  May __, 1997          ________________________________________
                             Lawrence J. DeGeorge

Date:  May __, 1997          ________________________________________
                             William J. Elsner

Date:  May 28, 1997          /s/ Joseph E. Giovanini
                             ------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Joseph E. Giovanini

Date:  May 28, 1997          /s/  Antony P. Ressler
                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Antony P. Ressler

Date:  May 28, 1997          /s/  Curtis Rochelle
                             --------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Curtis Rochelle

Date:  May 28, 1997          /s/  Mark L. Schneider
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------
                             Mark L. Schneider

Date:  May 28, 1997          /s/  Bruce Spector
                             --------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Bruce Spector

Date:  May 28, 1997          /s/  J. Timothy Bryan
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------
                             J. Timothy Bryan

Date:  May 28, 1997          /s/  Valerie L. Cover
                             ------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Valerie L. Cover

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

1 18 U.S.C. § 152. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No.96-20838

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TRILBY DEAN MAY, also known as

Denny May,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(96-CR-35-1)

May 29, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Trilby Dean May a ppeals the sentence imposed following her conviction for

concealing assets in contemplation of b ankruptcy, 1 contending that the district court2

erred in determining the amount of loss sustained by the bankruptcy trustee and, thus,

incorrectly calculated her offense level. May maintains that because the trustee reached

a settlement agreement with h er, the trustee conceded that his actual loss was the

$25,000 for which the parties settled and not the $65,012 that the trustee originally

claimed as his loss. That the trustee agreed to settle for an amount less than that

originally claimed was not an admission that the lesser sum more accurately reflected

the actual loss.

The record contains no evidence suggesting that $65,012 was not the amount of

actual loss sustained by the trustee. The district court did not commit reversible error

in using that amount for sentencing purposes. Furthermore, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in ordering May to pay restitution in the amou nt equal to the

difference between the actual loss and the amount the trustee received in the settlement

agreement.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Daniel A. Pelak, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Closure Medical Corporation; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 to the annual 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 Amendment No. 1 to the annual report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: April 29, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Daniel A. Pelak                  
|                     |  |     |  | Daniel A. Pelak                      
|                     |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

                    Correction: This notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 30, 2015, Volume 80, Number 20, Page 5116-5117. Due to inclement weather in the Atlanta, Georgia area, the first day of the meeting scheduled for February 25 and 26, 2015 was not held. The second day of the meeting will take place as follows:                          ( print page 11442)    

*Times and Dates:*                     10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m., February 26, 2015.                

                    The meeting will be webcast live via the World Wide Web; for instructions and more information on ACIP please visit the ACIP Web site:                     *http://www.cdc.gov/​vaccines/​acip/​index.html.*

*Matters To Be Discussed:*                     The shortened agenda will include discussions and votes on: Influenza LAIV use, serogroup B meningococcal (MenB) vaccines use in high risk groups, including outbreaks, and the use of 9vHPV vaccine.                

Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     Stephanie B. Thomas, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-A27, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone: (404) 639-8836; Email                     *ACIP@CDC.GOV.*

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                

Catherine Ramadei,

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2015-04330 Filed 3-2-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
exv10w58






Exhibit 10.58




AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO THE

PATRIOT RISK MANAGEMENT, INC. 2005 STOCK OPTION PLAN




     RESOLVED, that Section 4.01 [1] of the 2005 Stock Option Plan is hereby amended to read as
follows:



     “4.01 Number of Shares.




[1] Subject to Section 4.03, the number of shares of stock subject to awards under the Plan
is 75,743.”
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

UNITED COMMUNITIES, LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2022

- 1485

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims

in No. 1:20

- cv

- 01220

- PEC, Judge Patricia E. Campbell

Smith.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before M OORE

, Chief Judge

, T ARANTO and C HEN

, Circuit Judges

.

M OORE

, Chief Judge

.
O R D E R

Upon consideration of the United States’ s motion to dismiss this appeal as untimely and United Communities

, LLC ’s response at ECF No. 22 “conced[ing ] that this Court can dismiss the instant appeal as untimely filed,” Case: 22-1485 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 02/22/2024UNITED COMMUNITIES

, LLC v. US 2

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The stay is lifted

, and the motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

February 2 2 , 2024
Date F OR THE C OURT Case: 22-1485 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 02/22/2024
96-2509.

#### State v. White.

Ashland App. No. 96COA01182. On motion to recall mandate and permit supplemental briefing. Motion stricken.
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

# 

# Certificate of Recognition

***is given to***

NAME/ORGANIZATION

***National Security Agency, Frank B. Rowlett Award, YEAR***

*The citation will be used to present the award at the award ceremony and should be a summary of the accomplishments in the nomination.  The citation needs to remain unclassified*

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
#### Mendel, Appellant, vs. School District Number Six of the Town of Wauwatosa, Respondent.

*February 26*

March *22, 1904.*

*School Districts: Contracts: Evidence.*

1. A contract for the employment of a janitor for a district school can be made only by the district board at a meeting thereof duly called and held.

2. The best evidence of the acts of a school board is the record of its meetings, kept by the clerk.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county: J. C. Ludwig, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *W. C.*Zabel, attorney, and *W. B.*Rubin, of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Zabel.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Wheeler &*Perry, and oral argument by *L. Q. Wheeler.*

WiNSLow, J.

The plaintiff sued for damages for breach of a contract to serve defendant as janitor. He claimed that he was employed by the district board in the latter part of November, 1899, to serve as janitor for the balance of the school year beginning December 11, 1899, at the rate of $25 per month. It was admitted that he served for one month *81beginning December 11, 1899; that he was paid in full for that month; and that the district board refused to allow him: to work longer, although he held himself in readiness to do so. The trial court nonsuited the plaintiff because he failed to prove the entire contract which he claimed, and there can be no question as to the correctness of the ruling. No written contract was produced, but the plaintiff proved that in the latter part of November, 1899, the plaintiff’s wife, acting as his agent, handed to the director of the district a written bid to do the work of janitor of the school for $25 per month; that a meeting was held by the board two or three days later, and that after the meeting the director met the plaintiff’s wife, and told her that the bid was accepted, and the plaintiff went to work on the 11th of December, and did the work for a month, and was paid therefor. This was substantially all of the plaintiff’s proof. It does not show or tend to show the entire contract, which the plaintiff must show in order to recover. The contract could only be made by the board, and the board could only act at a meeting duly called and held. Sec. 432, Stats. 1898; *School Dist. v. Baier,*98 Wis. 22, 73 N. W. 448. The best evidence of the acts of the board must be the record of its meetings, kept by the clerk. The record was not offered, nor was its absence explained. It would be a novel idea that the acts of a public board could be proven by the unsworn statements out of court of one of the members of the board. Authorities need hardly be cited to refute such an idea.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
 
                                                                     Exhibit 5.1

                           [ROPES & GRAY LETTERHEAD]


                                April 29, 1999

Summit Technology, Inc.
21 Hickory Drive
Waltham, MA 02154

     Re:  Summit Technology, Inc.
          -----------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     This opinion is furnished to you in connection with a registration
statement on Form S-8 (the "Registration Statement"), to be filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
for the registration of 1,500,000 shares of Common Stock, $0.01 par value (the
"Shares"), of Summit Technology, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the
"Company").

     We have acted as counsel for the Company and are familiar with the actions
taken by the Company in connection with the 1997 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan").
For purposes of this opinion we have examined the Plan and such other documents,
records, certificates and other instruments as we have deemed necessary.

     We express no opinion as to the applicability of compliance with or effect
of federal law or the law of any jurisdiction other than The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

     Based on the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the Shares have been
duly authorized and, when the Shares have been issued and sold and consideration
received therefor by the Company in accordance with the terms of the Plan, the
Shares will be validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable.

     We hereby consent to your filing this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement.

     It is understood that this opinion is to be used only in connection with
the offer and sale of the Shares while the Registration Statement is in effect.

                              Very truly yours,


                              /s/ Ropes & Gray

                              Ropes & Gray
IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF,
        the
        Company has caused this Secured Convertible Debenture to be duly executed
        by a
        duly authorized officer as of the date set forth above.

      


      
        	 	
                COMPANY:

              
	 	
                NEOMEDIA
                  TECHNOLOGIES INC.

              
	 	 
	 	
                By: /s/
                  Michael W. Zima  

              
	 	
                
                  

                  Name: Michael
                  W. Zima

              
	 	
                Title:     
                  Chief
                  Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6164
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NIGEL NICHOLAS DOUGLAS, a/k/a Junior, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at N orfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-131, CA-97-806-2) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 2, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nigel Nicholas Douglas, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, Kevin Michael Comstock, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing only some of the claims alleged in his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We deny a certificate of appealability, deny the motions to appoint counsel and stay the ap peal, and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-11373

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

RUBEN GUTIERREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:97-CR-1-8-1-Y

November 13, 1998

Before WISDOM, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Ruben Gutierrez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute

marijuana, conspiracyto commit moneylaundering, and three counts ofmoney laundering. Gutierrez

was sentenced to 135 months on each count, to run concurrent. He now appeals that sentence.

Gutierrez contends that the district judge erred at sentencing in determining Gutierrez’s

offense level. We affirm.

First, Gutierrez contendsthat the district judge erred in applying a two point enhancement for
 

2

 U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1).

 

3 United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995).

 

4 United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 432 (5th Cir. 1995).

 

5

 U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a)

 

6 United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995).

 

7

 Record, vol. I, p. 34-38.

2

possession of a dangerous weapon during the commission of the offense.2 The district judge made

a finding of fact that the weapons found in Gutierrez’s home were sufficiently connected with the

conspiracyto warrant the enhancement. This court reviews that factual determination for clear error.3

A search of Gutierrez’s home revealed three firearms, three pounds of marijuana, ledgers of

drug accounts, and electronic scales. Gutierrez and his son each testified that the marijuana belonged

to the son, and had no connection with Gutierrez’s distribution network. The district court rejected

this testimony as self-serving. “A district court has wide discretion in determining which evidence

to consider and which testimony to credit.”4 As the marijuana and the guns were all found in

Gutierrez’s home, in close proximity to each other, there is no clear error in applying the two point

enhancement.

Gutierrez next contends that the district court erred in applying a four point increase to his

base offense level. This increase was based on the district court’s finding of fact that Gutierrez was

an “organizer or leader” of the criminal conspiracy.5 Again, this court reviews the district court’s

findings of fact for clear error.6

Gutierrez’s contention is based on the premise that he was merely a “seller/broker” of

marijuana, not an organizer o f the conspiracy. In entering a plea of guilty, Gutierrez signed a

stipulation of facts outlining his role in the conspiracy.7 According to that stipulation, the marijuana

was supplied by Gutierrez, and distributed at the direction of Juneau and Gutierrez. Based on the

stipulated fact that Gutierrez “directed” the distribution of marijuana, the district judge was not

clearly erroneous in applying the enhancement.
3

The sentence is AFFIRMED.