alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ethel Goolsby v. Wilbur T. Goolsby.

154 Sou. 522.

Opinion Filed April 24, 1934.

Petition for Rehearing Denied May 15, 1934.

*579
      *M. A. Rosin, Leo P. Kitchen*and *Dan R. Schwarts,*for Appellant;

*R. Percy Jones,*for Appellee.

Terrell, J.

— Complainant, Wilbur T. Goolsby, brought suit against Ethel Goolsby, the appellant, in the Circuit Court of Lee County, to secure a divorce. Defendant entered her appearance and petitioned the Chancellor for temporary alimony and suit money. Testimony was taken and the Chancellor entered a decree denying the prayer of the petitioner. Her petition for temporary alimony and suit money being denied in the lower court, was seasonably renewed in this Court and the Complainant has brought up the record of evidence taken below, properly certified, for our consideration.

When petitions for alimony and suit money are filed in this Court, we have generally followed the rule of referring them back to the Chancellor, to ascertain the faculties of the parties, but since that has been done, and we have the testimony taken by the Chancellor before us, it becomes unnecessary to follow that practice in the instant case.

Alimony is provided under Section 3194, Revised General Statutes of 1920, Section 4986, *et seq.,*Compiled General Laws of 1927. We have examined the law and the record of the testimony before us and we cannot say that the Chancellor erred in his order denying defendant’s petition. Having been renewed in this Court, it is accordingly dismissed.

It is so ordered.

*580Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
gO
oe

: wg ° UNITED STATES DEPARTMENIT OF COMIMERCE
% £ National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-

Brian Hancock

Director, Testing and Certification
U.S. Election Assistance Commission
1225 New York Ave, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005

July 21, 2008

S
Dear Mr. Hancock _

I am responding to your July 10, 2008 letter in which you ask for a status report from the
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) on items that the
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) noted as specific observations and concerns with
respect to voting system testing laboratory (VSTL) operations in an earlier letter, dated
March 13, 2008. Specifically you are interested in updates regarding how the accredited
laboratories, now undergoing their second round of assessments, are performing in the
areas of:

At this point in time, NVLAP has completed the second round of on-site assessments for
two VSTLs — SysTest Labs LLC and iBeta Quality Assurance. The assessor reports and
laboratory responses to identified nonconformities are under review. NVLAP on site
assessments specifically addressed EAC concerns and observations regarding VSTL staff
qualifications, appropriate assignment of qualified staff and development and validation
of test methods.

NVLAP agrees that VSTL competence in these areas is critical to their ability to carry
out work in support of EAC certification. We recommend that relevant NIST and EAC
representatives meet before the end of August to discuss in depth the NVLAP on site
assessment finding to date, VSTL responses and EAC concerns and observations. We
see this meeting as an opportunity for NVLAP and the EAC to consider and agree on
future steps to further enhance the credibility of both the NVLAP accreditation process
and the EAC Testing and Certification Program.

With respect to your question regarding VSTL prioritization of their EAC workload, this
type of review is not normally part of the accreditation process but we would be willing
to discuss how issues arising from improper prioritization may be addressed. In addition
we would like to identify any specific training certifications (your example was CISSP
certification) that would be helpful to include as requirements for VSTLs.

NUSsT


Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your concerns. We view this as an integral
part of our accreditation process and a critical contribution to our joint goals of ensuring
that VSTLs are competent to test voting systems and that the test reports they generate
meet EAC expectations.

Sincerely,
Mary Saunders

Chief, Standards Services Division
Technology Services
EXHIBIT 18.1


May 12, 2004


Air Methods Corporation
Englewood, Colorado


Ladies and Gentlemen:

We  have  been furnished with a copy of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Air
Methods  Corporation  (the "Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2004,
and  have  read the Company's statements contained in Note 2 to the consolidated
financial  statements included therein. As stated in Note 2, the Company changed
its  method of accounting for major engine and airframe component overhaul costs
from  the  accrual  method of accounting to the direct expense method and states
that  the newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances.
Under  the new accounting method, maintenance costs are recognized as expense as
maintenance  services  are  performed.  Also,  as  stated in Note 2, the Company
believes  the  newly  adopted  accounting  principle  is  preferable  in  the
circumstances  because the maintenance expense is not recorded until there is an
obligating  event  (when the maintenance event is actually being performed), the
direct  expense  method  eliminates significant estimates and judgments inherent
under  the  accrual  method,  and  it  is  the  predominant  method  used in the
transportation  industry.  In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and
discussed  with  Company  officials  the circumstances and business judgment and
planning upon which the decision to make this change in the method of accounting
was  based.

We  have  not  audited any financial statements of the Company as of any date or
for  any  period  subsequent  to  December  31,  2003,  nor  have we audited the
information set forth in the aforementioned Note 2 to the consolidated financial
statements;  accordingly,  we  do  not express an opinion concerning the factual
information  contained  therein.

With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria have
not  been  established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method
of  accounting  over  another  acceptable  method.  However, for purposes of the
Company's  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  the  Securities and Exchange
Commission,  we  are  furnishing  this  letter.

Based  on  our  review  and  discussion,  with reliance on management's business
judgment  and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is
preferable  in  the  Company's  circumstances.

Very truly yours,


KPMG LLP


<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lakeith Dontrell OFFORD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10102 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 22, 2018

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Lakeith Dontrell Offord, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lakeith Dontrell Offord has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Offord has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
                           TENNECO CREDIT CORPORATION
                         AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
 
                        COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS
                                TO FIXED CHARGES
                                  (UNAUDITED)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  (THOUSANDS)
                                                                  NINE MONTHS
                                                                     ENDED
                                                                 SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                                ---------------
                                                                 1996    1995
                                                                ------- -------
<S>                                                             <C>     <C>
Net income..................................................... $ 9,421 $14,908
Add:
 Interest expense..............................................  53,478  66,959
 Income taxes..................................................   6,294   9,646
                                                                ------- -------
   Earnings as defined......................................... $69,193 $91,513
                                                                ======= =======
Fixed charges--interest expense................................ $53,478 $66,959
                                                                ======= =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.............................    1.29    1.37
                                                                ======= =======
</TABLE>
# C_2021148EN.01002301.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/23

---

Action brought on 25 February 2021 — Stowarzyszenie chłodnictwa klimatyzacji i pomp ciepła v Commission

(Case T-123/21)

(2021/C 148/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Stowarzyszenie chłodnictwa klimatyzacji i pomp ciepła (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: A. Galos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission, notified on 15 December 2020, fixing the amount of the quota allocated to the applicant in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, (1) in so far as the Commission reduced the quota on the basis of Article 25 of the Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission, notified on 15 December 2020, fixing the amount of the quota allocated to the applicant in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, (1) in so far as the Commission reduced the quota on the basis of Article 25 of the Regulation;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward a plea in law alleging the incorrect application of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as a result of the misinterpretation of the concept of ‘placing on the market’ set out in Article 2, point 10, of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 150, p. 195.

---
#### John Zilei ZHONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-55549

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed February 5, 2018

John Zilei Zhong, Pro Se

William Carl Hankla, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Teresa Ellen McLaughlin, Attorney, Patrick J. Urda, Esquire, General Attorney, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, James Costello Hughes, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA — -Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee United States of America

Teresa Ellen McLaughlin, Attorney, Patrick J. Urda, Esquire, General Attorney, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appel-lees Department of Treasury, United States Internal Revenue Service

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

John Zilei Zhong appeals pro se from the district court judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Zheng’s action brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) challenging his suspension from practice before the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Gallo Cattle Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,*159 F.3d 1194, 1196 (9th Cir. 1998), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Zheng’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the IRS’s expedited suspension of Zheng’s right to practice is not a final agency decision. *See id.*at 1198-99, 1200 (holding that there is no subject matter jurisdiction under the APA in the absence of “final agency action” and explaining when an agency action is “final”); *see also*31 C.F.R. §§ 10.60, 10.82(g); *Navajo Nation v. Dep’t of the Interior,*876 F.3d 1144, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2017) (concluding that “[section] 704’s ‘final agency ac*764tion’ limitation applies only to APA claims”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### IN RE: S.J.M., a Minor, Appeal of: S.C.

63 MDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/20/2017

24 OC 2016 (Tioga)

Affirmed
Exhibit 4.69


 





 


PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL


COMPENSATION MEMO


 


	Date:	February 21, 2017	 
	To:	Justin Gover	 
	From: 	Tom Lynch	 
	cc:	Human Resources	 


 


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


 


Justin,


 


I am pleased to inform you of the following compensation decisions,
approved by the Remuneration Committee:


 


	 	Annual Salary - Effective January 1, 2017
	 	New Base Salary:	540,000 USD
	 	 	 
	 	Paid via US Payroll:	487,488 USD
	 	Paid via UK Payroll:	  52,512 USD
	 	 	 
	 	Please note that effective
January 1, 2017, the company provided pension contribution of 17.5% of your salary and your car allowance of $24,279 per annum
have ceased.


 


	 	Performance Bonus -  Discretionary bonus to be paid Mar 3, 2017
	 	Bonus Amount: 	455,100 USD


 


	 	Long Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) – Grant date January 6, 2017
	 	Restricted Stock Options:	  70,068  UK Ordinary Shares
	 	Performance Stock Options:	233,568  UK Ordinary Shares
	 	Market Priced Options:	142,344  UK Ordinary Shares


 


Thank you for all of your hard work. I
look forward to us working together to achieve yet more this year.
# Az Európai Unió C 114A/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0979 |
| --- | --- |
| Az Európai Unió
  Hivatalos Lapja | C 114A |
| | |
| Magyar nyelvű kiadás | Tájékoztatások és közlemények | 61. évfolyam2018. március 28. |

ISSN 1977-0979

Az Európai Unió

Hivatalos Lapja

C 114A

Magyar nyelvű kiadás

Tájékoztatások és közlemények

61. évfolyam2018. március 28.

---

| Közleményszám | Tartalom | Oldal |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Hirdetmények |
| | KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK |
| | Európai Parlament |
| 2018/C 114 A/01 | Kiválasztási eljárás – PE/199/S – Ideiglenes alkalmazott – Igazgatósági attasé (AD 5) – Alkalmas jelöltek listája | 1 |

Közleményszám

Tartalom

Oldal

V   Hirdetmények

KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK

Európai Parlament

2018/C 114 A/01

Kiválasztási eljárás – PE/199/S – Ideiglenes alkalmazott – Igazgatósági attasé (AD 5) – Alkalmas jelöltek listája

1

---

| HU | |
| --- | --- |

HU

---

V Hirdetmények

KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK

Európai Parlament

| 28.3.2018 | HU | Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja | CA 114/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2018

HU

Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja

CA 114/1

---

KIVÁLASZTÁSI ELJÁRÁS – PE/199/S

Ideiglenes alkalmazott – Igazgatósági attasé (AD 5)

ALKALMAS JELÖLTEK LISTÁJA

(2018/C 114 A/01)

| 1. | FISCHER, Jessica Isabell |
| --- | --- |

1.

FISCHER, Jessica Isabell

| 2. | LEMAIRE, Cléo |
| --- | --- |

2.

LEMAIRE, Cléo

| 3. | COURTADE, Christelle |
| --- | --- |

3.

COURTADE, Christelle

Az alkalmas jelöltek listájának érvényessége 2020. december 31-én jár le.

---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

268 

KA 14-00574 

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KEVIN V. BYNG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

PETER J. DIGIORGIO, JR., UTICA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KEVIN V. BYNG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

SCOTT D. MCNAMARA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (STEVEN G. COX OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M.

Donalty, J.), rendered September 8, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the third

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Same memorandum as in People v Byng ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___

[Mar. 31, 2017]).

Entered: March 31, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>

                                                           EXHIBIT 12

                      RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                     Thirteen Weeks     Thirty-Nine Weeks
                                            Fiscal Year Ended December                    Ended               Ended
                                  ----------------------------------------------   ------------------- -------------------
                                                                                   Sept. 26, Sept. 27, Sept. 26, Sept. 27,
                                    1993      1994       1995     1996      1997      1998      1997      1998      1997
                                    ----      ----       ----     ----      ----      ----      ----      ----      ----
                                     (amounts in thousands)
<S>                              <C>       <C>        <C>      <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Earnings (loss) from continuing
 operations                       $11,975   $(2,256)   $11,707  $18,733   $29,456   $11,035   $ 7,229   $31,926   $19,183
  Add provision for income taxes    7,718    (1,493)     8,126   12,986    20,415     7,706     5,011    22,308    13,319
                                  -------   -------    -------  -------   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
                                   19,693    (3,749)    19,833   31,719    49,871    18,741    12,240    54,234    32,502


Fixed Charges:
  Financing                         8,596    12,031     14,635   20,405    29,024     8,799     7,489    25,685    21,673
  Interest factor portion
   of rentals                       2,345     2,851      3,266    3,993     5,981     1,727     1,589     5,037     4,220
                                  -------   -------    -------  -------   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
  Total fixed charges              10,941    14,882     17,901   24,398    35,005    10,526     9,078    30,722    25,893
                                  -------   -------    -------  -------   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------

Earnings before income taxes
 and fixed charges                $30,634   $11,133    $37,734  $56,117   $84,876   $29,267   $21,318   $84,956   $58,395
                                  -------   -------    -------  -------   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
                                  -------   -------    -------  -------   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------

Ratio of earnings to
 fixed charges                       2.80      0.75       2.11     2.30      2.42      2.78      2.35      2.77      2.26
                                  -------   -------    -------  -------   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
                                  -------   -------    -------  -------   -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
</TABLE>

                                       16
Errata Note: 2018 EAVS Comprehensive Report and Accompanying Datasets 

July 15, 2020

Washington and Pennsylvania requested to make corrections to its data submissions for the 

2018 EAVS following the initial publication of the datasets on June 27, 2019 and the subsequent 

publication of Version 1.1 on October 22, 2019 and Version 1.2 on February 18, 2020. These 

corrections are documented below.

2018 Election Administration and Voting Survey Dataset

The corrections listed below are reflected in Version 1.3 of the 2018 EAVS dataset released on 

July 15, 2020.

• Washington provided updated numbers for A9c and A9h.

• Pennsylvania provided updated numbers for A9e, which also impacted their A9a totals.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10664

Summary Calendar

DEBORAH L. HUGHES, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:18-CV-87

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff Deborah Hughes filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 

seeking judicial review of the unfavorable decision by the Commissioner of the 

Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) regarding her application for 

disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act 

(“SSA”) and application for supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title 

 

* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 8, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10664 Document: 00515193640 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2019
No. 19-10664

2

XVI of the SSA. Hughes argued that at her hearing before the administrative 

law judge (“ALJ”), the hypothetical question the ALJ posed to the vocational 

expert (“VE”) was defective and constitutes reversible error. She also argued 

that the ALJ erred in failing to determine whether she was able to maintain 

employment. The magistrate judge1 affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and the 

relevant portions of the record. We AFFIRM the judgment for the reasons 

explained in the magistrate judge’s order.

 

1 The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); 

FED. R. CIV. P. 73(a).

 Case: 19-10664 Document: 00515193640 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2019