alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Cash W. PAWLEY, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D17-4695

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

Cash W. Pawley, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kristen J. Lonergan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED. *See**Rivera v. Department of Health* , 177 So.3d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

Wolf, Roberts, and Wetherell, JJ., concur.
Interagency Communications Group 1
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We have issued our reports datedJune 10, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements, schedule and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Rentrak Corporation and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31,2011. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Rentrak Corporation and subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File Nos.; 333-28565, effective June 5, 1997; and 333-39021,effective October 29, 1997). 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

Portland, Oregon 

June 10, 2011
| (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                as of December 31, 2006 and for the periods then ended. |
|-----|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                 |                                                                                                             |                                               |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Date: April 16, 2007 |                                                                                                             | /s/ Robert              C.              Ogden |
|                 | Robert              C. Ogden, Chief Financial Officer(Principal                Financial and Accounting Officer) |

----
---

Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of ERHC Energy Inc., a Colorado corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Sylvan Odobulu, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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.








/s/    Sylvan Odobulu


Sylvan Odobulu


Principal Accounting Officer


August 11, 2009





[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ERHC Energy Inc. and will be retained by ERHC Energy Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
Amended and Restated Commitment Letter



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 SEQUOIA ENTERPRISES, L.P. 
 VESSEL PARTNERS, L.P. 
 March 27, 2009 
 BDO Seidman, LLP 
 Ladies and gentlemen: 
 In connection with BDO Seidman, LLP’s audit of
the consolidated financial statements of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the “Company”) as of and for the year ended June 25, 2008, Sequoia Enterprises, L.P. (“Sequoia”) and Vessel Partners, L.P. (“Vessel” and collectively
with Sequoia, the “Lenders”) make the following commitments. This letter amends, restates and supersedes the Lenders’ letters to you dated as of October 8, 2008, November 10, 2008 and January 23, 2009. 

 

	 	1.	The Lenders commit to provide additional financial support to the Company on commercially acceptable terms not to exceed $5 million until April 8, 2010. Such amount will
provide cash flow sufficient to operate the Company on a going concern basis during that period. 

  

	 	2.	To evidence the commitment in the paragraph above, the Lenders will enter into a commitment letter or note agreement not to exceed $5 million with the Company as soon as possible
and no later than April 30, 2009. 

  

	 	3.	In addition to the above, Sequoia will also extend the maturity date on commercially acceptable terms on the $2 million note purchase agreement with the Company that is set to
expire on March 31, 2009. After such commercially acceptable terms have been finally negotiated, the maturity of the note will be extended to at least March 31, 2010. In the interim, the maturity of the note will be extended to
April 30, 2009. 

  

	 	4.	The Lenders will not require that the Company agree to any covenants more onerous than those presently existing in the agreements between the Company and Sequoia.


  

	 	5.	The Lenders have the intent and the ability to fully fund the financial commitments that are outlined in this letter. 

  

	 	6.	I have the authority as the General Partner of each of Sequoia Enterprises, L.P. and Vessel Partners, L.P. to make investment decisions and financial commitments outlined in this
letter. 

  

	 	7.	The Lenders’ commitments set forth in this letter shall immediately cease and terminate if the Company receives gross proceeds from any transaction of $5 million or more or
enters into a credit or loan agreement with a party other than the Lenders for at least $5 million. 

  

			
		 	Sincerely,
		
		 	/s/ Paul Heeschen
		 	 Paul Heeschen
 General Partner, Sequoia Enterprises,
L.P.
 General Partner, Vessel Partners, L.P.
O.M., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1851

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
----

| Re: | Internal Revenue Code      Section 409A |
|-----|-----------------------------------------|

|                  |   | Harman      International Industries, Inc. |
|-----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                  |   |                                       |   |
| /s/ Erich Geiger      |   | By:                                        | /s/ John Stacey |
| Dr.      Erich Geiger |   |                                       | John      Stacey |
|                  |   |                                       | Vice      President and Chief HROfficer |

----
William S. CARSON, Sr., Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2474

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**MEMORANDUM**

**DATE:** 06/16 /2014 **FROM:** Laura Farris/EPA Region 8 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR– 2013
- 0602 **SUBJECT:** Grand March for Climate Change Action held on 06/16 /2014 **SUMMARY :**  EPA Region 8 ’s Regional Administrator, Shaun McGrath, attended the Grand March for Climate Change Action held on 06/16 /2014 to discuss the President’s Climate Action Plan and the proposed Clean Power Plan for E xisting Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants w as proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES: EPA**  Shaun McGrath /EPA Region 8 **External Stakeholders** Members of the Public and Press **ATTACHMENTS** None.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2009-0785

Directorate Identifier: 2009NM125AD

84-27-32, RA --- 1118108

AOM 217B --- 4126107

NamelDescription of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave, SW,

Renton, WA 98057

425,227,1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a,m, and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2802

___________

Albert Reece, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation * District of Missouri.

Center; Mario Carrera, Dr.; Karol Kiel; *

Allen Blake; Roberta Gardine; Beverly * [UNPUBLISHED]

Buscemi, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: September 23, 1999

Filed: October 1, 1999

___________

Before LOKEN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Albert Reece appeals the district court's order dismissing Reece's complaint

under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). Having considered the record and Reece's arguments

on appeal, we conclude Reece's complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §

1983, because the complaint contained no specific allegations linking any of the

appellees to any deprivation of Reece's rights. We thus affirm the district court. See

8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6467

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

XAVIER D. ECCLESTON, a/k/a Xavier Daniel Eccleston, a/k/a X,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cr-00567-PJM-3; 8:17-cv-00729-PJM)

Submitted: September 18, 2018 Decided: September 21, 2018

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

C. Justin Brown, LAW OFFICE OF C. JUSTIN BROWN, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Xavier D. Eccleston seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Eccleston has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
### Experts to Weigh in On Port Authority Reforms- Metropolis- WSJ



# TifEWALLSTREETJOUIL'lAL. April17, 2014. 2:10 F'fVl F:T 

# Experts toWeigh in On PortAuthority Reforms ByAndrew Tange/and Ted Mann

Pedestrians walk past the Port Authority Bus Terminal in NewYork on Wednesday. Bloomberg News 

### Page I of2

For months, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has been mired in controversy over the apparently politically motivated closure of lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge in Fort Lee, N.J. Some have called for cleaving apart the agency, which is controlled by the two states and operates major airports, bridges and bus terminals in the region. There have been questions over patronage and conflicts of interest amid investigations by legislators and prosecutors. Now the experts will weigh in on how to fix the Port Authority. The agency on Thursday named five experts who will discuss reforms next week. The panelists include: lV1itcheU IVIoss,

**prot~~..,;:::.or** ofurban poJiey and planning and director ofthe 

### Rudin CcnterforTnul::>portation at Ne,.vYork University. 

### RobertY.aro} president 

### ofthe Regional 

### Plan Association. 1\'Iartin Robins, founding director ofthe Alan M. VoorheesTransportation Centerat Rutgers Universi-ty and former (ljrector ofplanning at the Port.Authmity. 

### Carol Kdlcrrnann, president 

### oftheCitizens Budget 

### Commission. • Jameson Doig. Princeton Universi-ty professoremeritus am! author ofthe- hook, "Emp.ire on the I-Iudson.'' 

### The expert panel will meet at 9 a.m. Monday at the Port Authority's headquarters in Manhattan.


### http:/ /blogs.wsj .com/metropolis/2014/04/17 /experts-to-weigh-in-on-port-authority-reforms/!... 9/5/2014

### Experts to Weigh in On Port Authority Reforms- Metropolis- WSJ Page 2 of2 Scott Rechler, the Port Authority's vice chairman who chairs the Special Oversight Committee formed in the wake ofthe bridge scandal, said the committee hopes to get "actionable advice" on reforms and suggestions for longer-term changes. "When it comes to reform at the Port Authority, everything is on the table," Mr. Rechler said in a statement. Copyright 2014 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use orto order multiple copies. please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 orvisit www.djreprints_com



### http:/ /blogs.wsj .com/metropolis/2014/04/17 /experts-to-weigh-in-on-port-authority-reforms/!... 9/5/2014
#### Buchanan as *adm’r. etc. v.*Nixon.

*Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court.*

Hon. William N. May, Circuit Judge.

*Garland*<f* *Nash,*for appellant.

*Clark Williams,*for appellees.

GrREGG-, J.

The appellant presented a claim against the estate of the deceased for $1520, founded upon a promissory note, which claim was allowed, duly classed and ordered to be paid.

The appellant then filed his bill in equity and prayed an injunction against the collection of the claim, and that the order and judgment of the probate court be declared void, upon the ground that the only consideration for the note was certain negro slaves, sold in the year 1859, by the appellee to the deceased, in his life-time.

The appellee answered, made a feeble attempt to show that he had received pay for the slaves and then loaned part of the money.

Upon the hearing in the circuit court, the chancellor dismissed the bill for want of equity, and decreed costs against the appellant, from which decree he appealed to this court.

The only question involved in this case was decided by this court in the case of *Jacoway v. Denton, 25 Ark. 265.*That case determined the validity of the notes given for slave pro-, perty before the attempted secession of the State.

The decree of the circuit court is in all things affirmed with costs.

McClure, J.,

dissenting, says:

I dissent on the grounds given in Kaufman v. Barb.
#### Cline *v.*Wilson, *et al.*

*Partners*— When *rights vest.*— Agreement of partnership to commence *in*futuro, upon the death of one of the parties, before the time fixed for commencement, no estate or interest intended to he contributed by either of the parties, vests in the partnership and the survivor takes nothing as such.

Eight of Survivor. — A surviving partner has a right to the possession and control of the partnership property for the purpose of settling and closing the business, and not for the purpose of carrying it on.

*Appeal f i o/u Pope Circuit Court*

Hox. W. U. Max, Circuit Judge.

*Gallagher $ Newton*for appellant.

*Clark*Williams, for appellees.

Harrison, ,J.

This was an action of ejectment by Chestoen Cline against Curtis R. Wilson, Mary A. Dawson, Absalom Adams, Joseph A. "Wilson and Jones Ilicks.

Absalom Adams, Joseph A. Wilson and Jones Hicks, pleaded the general issue, Curtis R. W ilson and Mary A. Dawson the general issue, and also, specially, that the parcel of land described in the declaration, was the property, in his lifetime, of William II. Dawson, deceased, who died, seized and possessed thereof, on the 11th day of November, 1868; that they were his executors, and that, as such, entered into and took possession of the same.

To this special jilea the plaintiff replied that the said William H. Dawson and himself, on the 18th day of September, 1868, formed a partnership for the purpose of carrying on the business of farming in the ensuing year of 1869, and that, by their partnership agreement, the said William H. Dawson was to contribute or furnish the said land for cultivation.

*155A demurrer was sustained to the replication, and the plaintiff declining to proceed further with his suit, it was dismissed by the court and judgment rendered against him for costs.

The partnership between the plaintiff and William IT. Dawson having been dissolved by the death of the latter, before the beginning of the year 1869, or the commencement of the term for which it was to have the land, no estate or interest in it ever vested in the partnership, and the plaintiff, of course, could have none as surviving partner, lie was entitled, as such survivor, to the possession of the properly belonging to the partnership, if any, only for the purpose of settling and closing the business of the partnership, and not for the purpose of continuing or carrying it on.

The demurrer was properly sustained, and the court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff’s suit, upon his refusing to proceed further with it, and rendering judgment against him for costs.

Judgment affirmed.
msci-ex10162_947.htm



 

Exhibit 10.162 

 

AMD_00232679.0

 

THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) dated as of October 1, 2017 (the “Amendment Effective Date”) is made to the Previous Amendment (as defined below) by and between MSCI Inc. (formerly known as Morgan Stanley Capital International Inc.) (“MSCI”) and BlackRock Fund Advisors, a California corporation (as successor to Barclays Global Investors, N.A.) (“Licensee”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Previous Amendment.

WHEREAS, MSCI and Licensee entered into the Amendment (internal MSCI reference number: AMD_00133694.0) dated July 16, 2014 (the “Previous Amendment”), which amends the Index License Agreement for Funds (internal MSCI reference number: IXF_00040) dated as of March 18, 2000 (the “Agreement”) by and between MSCI and Licensee; and

WHEREAS, on a date which is expected to occur on or about February 28, 2018 (the “Conversion Date”), Licensee and MSCI wish to replace one MSCI index with a different MSCI index as the basis of iShares MSCI China A ETF.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, each of MSCI and Licensee hereby agree to amend the Previous Amendment as follows:


	
1.
	
Commencing on the Conversion Date, Section 1 of the Previous Amendment is hereby amended so that the MSCI China A International Index shall be deleted and replaced with the following index: “MSCI China A Inclusion Index.”





	
2.
	
This Amendment amends and operates in conjunction with the Previous Amendment.  This Amendment, the Previous Amendment and the Agreement constitute the complete and exclusive statement of the agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede in full all prior proposals and understandings, oral or written, relating to such subject matter.  To the extent that the terms of this Amendment conflict with the terms of the Previous Amendment or the Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall control.





	
3.
	
This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York without regard to its conflict or choice of laws principles.





	
4.
	
This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, which taken together, shall constitute one Amendment and each party hereto may execute this Amendment by signing such counterpart; provided that no party shall be bound hereby until the Amendment has been executed and delivered by all parties hereto.  A facsimile or PDF signature of either party to this Amendment shall be deemed an original signature of such party and shall manifest such party’s intention to be bound by this Amendment.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the Amendment Effective Date set forth above.


	
MSCI Inc.
	
 
	
BlackRock Fund Advisors

	
By /s/ Alex Gil
	
 
	
By /s/ Ruth Weiss

	
Name Alex Gil
	
 
	
Name Ruth Weiss

	
Title Executive Director
	
 
	
Title Managing Director




 

1
Scott HAAS, DOC# S18655, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2179

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 14, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.