alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15-1


August 14, 2001

Michigan Consolidated Gas Company
Detroit, Michigan

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company for the periods ended June 30,
2001 and 2000, as indicated in our report dated August 14, 2001; because we did
not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2001, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-56333 and No.
333-63370 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Detroit, Michigan
#### Delage Landen Financial Services, Inc. v. Voices of Faith Ministries, Inc.

10/27/2015

407 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1143
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

WILLIE JAMES BILLUE, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-1667

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed March 8, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Nancy Moate Ley, Judge.

Willie James Billue, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
*September 15,*2017

2017-Ohio-7621.]

2017-0436.

#### In re Complaint of Harris Design Servs. v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 15-405-GA-CSS. Sua sponte, briefing schedule reinstated. Appellee shall file a merit brief within 30 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07.
Exhibit 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
MER Telemanagement Solutions Ltd.
---------------------------------



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form F-3  (File No.  333-11644)  and Form S-8  (File  No.  333-12014)  of MER
Telemanagement  Solutions  Ltd.  and in the related  Prospectuses  of our report
dated February 2, 2004 with respect to the consolidated  financial statements of
MER Telemanagement Solutions Ltd. included in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for
the year ended December 31, 2003.



                                            /s/ Kost Forer Gabbay and Kasierer
Tel-Aviv, Israel                            KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER
June 25, 2004                               A Member of Ernst & Young Global
CAAP-13-0002428

#### State v. Awana

Affirmed
# Utility Services expands support to U.S. Navy

/ Published Feb. 27, 2020
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, 
Defense Logistics Agency Energy is expanding its utilities partnership with the U.S. Navy, increasing energy reliability, security and resilience.

The first joint DLA Energy and Navy utilities privatization effort was released in October 2019 for a wastewater utility system at Mayport, Florida. In a Memorandum of Understanding between DLA Energy and the Navy, they agreed to a release of one new solicitation in fiscal 2020 and fiscal 2021. 

“This reform initiative will save the Department of Defense $2.3 million between fiscal years 2019-2024,” said DLA Energy Utility Services Director Martha Gray. “DLA Energy anticipates a long and successful relationship with its new Navy partner.”

In February, the DLA Director Army Lt. Gen. Darrell Williams, and DLA Energy Commander Air Force Brig. Gen Albert G. Miller announced that DLA Energy Utility Services had completed the 2018 DoD Reform Initiative, DoD Utility Systems Conveyance. 

“While we have MOUs with the Army and Air Force and have been working to help them build more secure and resilient utilities infrastructure for nearly 20 years, the Navy was not actively pursuing the program,” said DLA Energy Utility Services Deputy Director Laurie Carlson. “I believe the Navy saw the success the Army and Air Force were having and realized this could enhance and rehabilitate its systems.”

DLA Energy Utility Services helps military services coordinate and consolidate DoD privatization efforts including gas lines, electrical distribution systems, water and wastewater systems, and thermal systems. In the utilities privatization process, military installations shift from the role of owner-operator to that of smart utility service customers.

“Utility Services supports military service partners by offering specialized contracting and technical expertise to obtain safe, reliable, and environmentally sound utility systems, at a relatively lower cost than they would under continued government ownership,” Gray said. “We offer cradle-to-grave contracting support including full range of pre and post-award contract administration for the 50-year contract term.”

The Utilities Privatization program builds energy security/resilience by improving utility systems. To date, system owners have invested $1.3 billion in initial capital improvements.

Supporting the DoD Reform Initiative aligns with the DLA Strategic Plan, specifically the line of effort Strong Partnerships and DLA Energy’s line of effort Mature Relationships with DOD, Industry and Allied Partners, to improve DoD-wide efficiency in managing utility system conveyance efforts.

“The benefit to DoD is a single face to Industry that increases efficiency and provides comprehensive end-to-end contract management,” said Williams. “DLA Energy has the knowledge and experience to provide cost savings and consistency to the Navy’s utilities privatization program.”
**Call with John Wallace, Wallace Wood Products**

**1/24/2011, Contacted by Dave Mancinelli, Abt Associates Inc. Call Notes** 
 Initial cost to TPC was about $10,000 for NAF exemption o Initial test and 12 weeks of weekl y testing cost about $6,000 - $8,000 (all perf ormed b y the TPC)  At this time, they

were not producing pl ywood. For each test, it took a lot of time to begin production to produce a small sample for testing. o TPC employ ee needed to fly down from WIa couple times for plant audits  Cost the mill $2,000 i n travel each time o Shipping was about $50/week for 12 weeks, plus about $200 for the initial testing  Used UPS

– 12” x 12” panels wrapped in plastic (they make smaller custom boards) o Recordkeeping and labeling costs were very small  They print labels using c ard stock

– label bundles, not individual panels

 Recurring Costs o Certification fee is $500 per quarter o Plant audit occurs every 2 years
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Newport
News Shipbuilding Inc. Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1999, and the related
Statement of Earnings for the year ended December 31, 1999 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       93
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         55
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   592
<PP&E>                                           1,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                     884
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              446
<BONDS>                                            400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         272
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,512
<SALES>                                          1,863
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,863
<CGS>                                            1,661
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,661
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (16)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  54
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    164
<INCOME-TAX>                                        67
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        97
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.72


</TABLE>
|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                
|View History:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|Otay Mesa, CA Natural Gas Pipeline Imports Price from Mexico (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|Otay Mesa, CA Natural Gas Pipeline Imports Price from Mexico (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | --     | --    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | --     | 3.55   | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | 3.53   | 4.85   | 3.93  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4.41   | 13.44  | 19.34  | 22.01  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-7267.

#### Valentine *v.*Cain, Warden.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Hazardous Inventory
 
  By Douglas Smith, director of DLA Energy Aerospace Energy
  One particular challenge Defense Logistics Agency Energy is facing to obtain a clean audit is verifying inventory levels for some hazardous products, in particular hypergolic propellants like hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide used for space launch and related programs. In order to establish a certifiable beginning inventory balance that complies with audit expectations, DLA would need to physically verify these hazardous products. This would require the products be removed from tanks, transferred to trailers, weighed and returned to tanks. However, hypergols are extremely hazardous and require very special handling. In fact, for any transfer operation the weather must be just right and the wind speed and direction must meet specific criteria. Personnel handling the products are at risk for inhaling vapors or exposure and must don a Self-Contained Atmospheric Protective Ensemble, or SCAPE, suit. Therefore, DLA Energy keeps the transfer movements of the bulk hypergolic product inventory to a minimum and has been discussing with EY the options or alternatives available to meet audit requirements while mitigating unnecessary risk to life and limb through the potential inhalation or other challenges these hazardous products introduce. DLA Energy hopes to develop a plan with EY so these products don’t interfere with DLA’s ability to obtain a clean audit and are working diligently to have necessary evidentiary matter and a reasonable approach for these products.
#### Com. v. Bair

10/26/2015

258 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 1054
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.01

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                      (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED)


     In connection with the Annual Report of Macrovision Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
William A. Krepick certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted), that to the best of his knowledge:

(a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

(b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed this Certification
as of March 31, 2003.


                                                 /s/ William A. Krepick
                                              ----------------------------
                                              William A. Krepick
                                              Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Todd M. Miranda et al., Respondents, v Jay Construction Corporation, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 799]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, and for specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), entered December 13, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the defendant seller that the two mortgage commitments obtained by the plaintiff purchasers failed to comply with the requirements of the contract’s mortgage contingency clause, since they were both for a greater amount than permitted by that clause, and were conditional, and therefore not “firm,” as required by the contract *(see 1550 Fifth Ave. Bay Shore v 1550 Fifth Ave.,*297 AD2d 781, 783 [2002]; *Post v Mengoni,*198 AD2d 487 [1993]; *Silva v Celella,*153 AD2d 847, 848 [1989]).

We nevertheless affirm the denial of the motion for summary judgment because a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the conduct of the defendant seller evinced an intent to waive the right to cancel the contract based on the plaintiff purchasers’ failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the mortgage contingency clause *(see Sibinga v Ingenito,*306 AD2d 457 [2003]; *Ehrenpreis v Klein,*260 AD2d 532 [1999]; *Kaufman v Haverstraw Rd. Lands,*158 AD2d 675 [1990]; *Gresser v Princi,*128 AD2d 752 [1987]). McGinity, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

*421i
Exhibit 10.2

 

AMENDMENT ONE TO THE

AQUILA, INC. SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

(Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2005)

 

This Amendment is made by Aquila, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).

 

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Aquila, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) the benefit of a select group of management or highly compensated employees; and

 

WHEREAS, the Plan was most recently amended and restated in its entirety on July 31, 2007  and the Company now desires to further amend the Plan to reflect the Plan’s historical practice regarding the distribution of small benefits;

 

|   | NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows: |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | A. | Section 4.04(a) is amended by adding the following to the end said Section: |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the lump sum present value of a Participant’s Grandfathered Benefit does not exceed $10,000 (calculated using an interest rate of eight percent (8%) and the same mortality table assumptions used by the Retirement Income Plan), then such Grandfathered Benefit may be paid in a single lump sum in the discretion of the Committee.

 

|   | B. | The second and third sentences of Section 4.05 are deleted in their entirety. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is adopted this 7th day of November, 2007. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | By: | /s/ Leo E. Morton |
|--------|-----|-------------------|

Title: Senior Vice President & Chief Administrative Officer
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3568

_____________________________
R ODERICK C. H ALLMON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

. January 8, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OWE , O STERHAUS , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Candice K. Brower, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, and Michael J. Titus, Assistant Conflict Counsel , Tallahassee, for Appell ant.
Ashley Brooke Moody
, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### Com. v. Piazza

09/18/2015

253 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 1042
#### Rajesh Punwaney, Respondent, v Lavina Punwaney et al., Appellants.

[49 NYS3d 664]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered May 21, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from withdrawing or transferring funds from certain State Bank of India bank accounts, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to allow defendants to withdraw or transfer funds from the aforesaid bank accounts only for the purpose of paying taxes or penalties assessed thereon, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

This action concerns the disposition of assets held in several foreign bank accounts after the death of the primary account holder (the decedent), who was the husband of defendant *490Lavina Punwaney and father of both plaintiff and defendant Juanita Punwaney. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants from withdrawing or transferring funds from the accounts. Although the motion court properly granted a preliminary injunction, we modify the scope of the injunction.

CPLR 6301 authorizes preliminary injunctive relief enjoining violations of the plaintiffs rights “respecting the subject of the action.” The “subject of the action” requirement is satisfied here, because plaintiff claims entitlement to a specific fund — namely, the foreign bank accounts *(Dinner Club Corp. v Hamlet on Olde Oyster Bay Homeowners Assn., Inc.,*21 AD3d 777, 778 [1st Dept 2005]; *see Ficus Invs., Inc. v Private Capital Mgt., LLC,*61 AD3d 1, 11-12 [1st Dept 2009]).

While the facts are disputed, at this point plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of the merit of his conversion and conspiracy claims to justify the relief sought.

Moreover, absent a preliminary injunction, plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm in the form of tax prosecution, including possible criminal liability *(see Four Times Sq. Assoc. v Cigna Invs.,*306 AD2d 4, 5, 6 [2003]). Although both parties have taken advantage of the Internal Revenue Service’s Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program for reporting previously undisclosed foreign assets, failure to timely pay any taxes or penalties assessed with respect to the subject accounts could lead to removal from the program and the safe harbor it provides. Withdrawal of funds from the accounts would deprive plaintiff of the ability to pay such taxes or penalties. On the other hand, prohibiting defendants from withdrawing such funds would leave them in the same position — unable to pay taxes or penalties as they come due. Accordingly, to strike a better balance of the equities *(see id.*at 5), the order is modified to allow defendants to withdraw or transfer funds from the accounts only for the purpose of paying taxes or penalties.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Gische and Webber, JJ.
Albany

Atlanta

Brussels

Denver

Los Angeles

Miami

New York 1676 International Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

Tel: 703.336.8800

mckennalong.com Northern V irginia

Orange County

Rancho Santa Fe

San Diego

San Francisco

Seoul

Washington, DC

Mark E. McKinnon

703.336.8708

Matthew J. Clark

703.336. 8714 Email Address

mmckinnon@mckennalong.com

mclark@mckennalong.com June 25 , 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Delivery of Confidential and Proprietary RTI Group Motion Picture and UAS

Operations Manual (Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 1455)

To Whom it May Concern :

As you ar e aware, this office represents RTI Group, LLC (RTI) regarding the above

referenced Petition for Exemption, in which RTI seeks regulatory relief to allow commercial

operation of small unmanned aircraft system. Please accept this letter as confir mation that RTI's

Motion Picture and UAS Operations Manual, which contains proprietary and confidential

information, was submitted electronically via e

- mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov on June 25 , 2015.

If you have any questions or require any additional information to process RTI's Petition for

Exemption , please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

Matthew J. Clark

Mark E. McKinnon

Counsel for RTI Group, LLC
Decided December 15, 2016

#### Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Matter of, v New Way Massage Therapy P.C.

1st Dept: 134 AD3d 495

denied