alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 25, 2020

NO. 03-19-00962-CV

M. W., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KELLY, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the final decree signed by the trial court on December 10, 2019. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s final decree. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s final decree. 

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
EXHIBIT 32.2



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



I, Breht T. Feigh, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer, of American Dental Partners, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2004 which this certification accompanies fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



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



|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    BREHT T. FEIGH                                                          
|Breht T.
Feigh, Executive Vice
President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer
|                                                                               
|March 11, 2005
#### Ruth Mariani, Appellant, v Ramin Hodjati, M.D., et al., Respondents.

[49 NYS3d 128]

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered March 17, 2016, dismissing the complaint as against defendants, respectively, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered November 16, 2015, which granted defendant Isabella Geriatric Center’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment in said defendant’s favor.

In opposition to defendants’ uncontested prima facie showing that they did not deviate from the accepted standard of medical care in treating plaintiff’s neurologic symptoms and that, in any event, any deviation did not proximately cause her alleged injuries, plaintiff submitted an expert opinion that, had plaintiff been transferred to the hospital, either during the weekend of May 19 and 20, 2012, when she exhibited neurological symptoms, or on May 21, 2012, after those symptoms had resolved, and received different treatment, either her May 23, *4962012 stroke would have been prevented or a more favorable prognosis would have resulted. This opinion relies on hindsight and is both speculative and conclusory *(see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp.,*99 NY2d 542 [2002]; *Abalola v Flower Hosp.,*44 AD3d 522 [1st Dept 2007]). Among other things, plaintiff’s expert failed to address defendant Hodjati’s expert’s opinions that plaintiff’s history of having a stroke 10 years earlier, without recurrence, gave her a low risk of an imminent stroke, and that, following the 2012 stroke, plaintiff returned to her baseline level of health, which included left-sided hemiparesis with a slight facial droop.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Maz-zarelli and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Security officials remind employees to be vigilant
 
  By Russell Pitts, Installation Antiterrorism Officer
  In the United States, the workplace has been the primary target of terrorism. From the events of 9-11 that targeted the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to the active shooter events at Fort Hood, Texas, there is a need to be prepared. Antiterrorism preparedness is a series of common-sense measures that can be applied no matter how small the probability of a terrorist attack.  You and your family should apply these basic precautions to increase your personal safety. Listed below are a few protective measures and techniques you can take to increase your survival chances during an emergency. **Residential security:**Do not place a name or rank on the outside of your residence or mailbox**.**Have good lighting – motion activated is highly recommended. Limit potential hiding places by controlling vegetation. **Entrances and exits:**Solid doors with dead-bolt locks; one-way peepholes in doors; and locks on windows and skylights. **Interior:**Use alarm and intercom systems. Have fire extinguishers and medical and first aid kits on hand. **Training and awareness:**Complete your antiterrorism training yearly; attend an Active Shooter Awareness class and contact local law enforcement for crime prevention tips. **Tips for the family at home:**Practice key control. Change locks if keys are lost. Lock all entrances/garage doors at night**.**Shred all documents with personally identifiable information**.**Know your neighbors and join a neighborhood watch. Be aware of the threat level; listen to local news reports or read reports in local newspapers. **Be suspicious:**Be alert to public work crews – verify identity before allowing entry**.**Write down license plate numbers and description of vehicle/occupants of suspicious vehicles**.**Practice good operations security, or OPSEC; do not reveal personal information to strangers/acquaintances. **Remember**: Say something if you see something! It is important to report suspicious activity to local law enforcement (911 on installation phone only, or 804-279-4888 on all phones), your supervisor, iWATCH DLA email DLAAVNiWatch@dla.mil, or through DLA Today DLA iWATCH on the DLA intranet (accessible to DLA employees with a common access card). While the list above is not all-inclusive, it should help with developing a plan or strategy to protect you and your family should a terrorist event occur. Employees with any additional questions, may contact Russell Pitts.
EXHIBIT 23.2


                        [Letterhead of Dixon Hughes PLLC]


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


The Board of Directors
First South Bancorp, Inc.
Washington, North Carolina

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-49759 and No. 333-104144) on Form S-8 of First South Bancorp, Inc. and
Subsidiary of our reports dated March 7, 2006, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of First South Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary, management's
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which reports
appear in First South Bancorp, Inc.'s 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ Dixon Hughes PLLC
-----------------------
Sanford, North Carolina
March 15, 2006
#### Vincent Melo et al., Appellants, v Howard Byrns, Respondent.

[51 NYS3d 899]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated May 18, 2015, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiffs’ appendix is sufficient for the purpose of reviewing the issue raised by them on the instant appeal *(see*22 NYCRR 670.10.2 [c] [1]; CPLR 5528 [a] [5]; *Washington Mut. Bank v Wade,*119 AD3d 930, 931 [2014]). Accordingly, we decline to dismiss the appeal.

However, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court’s response to the subject jury note was proper and stated the law as applicable to the particular facts at issue *(see Green v Downs,*27 NY2d 205, 208 [1970]; *Rowe v New York City Tr. Auth.,*295 AD2d 333, 334 [2002]; *Kravis v Horn,*254 AD2d 462, 463 [1998]; *Martino v Triangle Rubber Co.,*249 AD2d 454, 455 [1998]; *see generally*PJI 1:40).

Rivera, J.P., Hall, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.
# He had a dream

/ Published Jan. 17, 2020
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, 
Fifty-seven years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave the renowned “I Have a Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington. A speech many say became a slogan for equality and changed the course of the civil rights movement. 

In observance of King’s life and legacy, Defense Logistics Agency employees gathered for a two-day viewing of the documentary “King in the Wilderness” at the McNamara Headquarters Complex, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Jan. 15 and 16.

“Monthly ethic observances at DLA are an important part of our culture and are designed to educate and raise awareness,” said Acting Director of DLA Energy Equal Employment Opportunity, Diversity & Inclusion Office Ahmad Burse. “We use many formats from guest speakers and panel discussions to educational workshops and watching a documentary like ‘King in the Wilderness’ honors the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.”

The HBO award-winning documentary focuses on the last three years of King’s life. In 1964, after the March on Washington, rebellion and riots started all around the country. The nonviolent methods of protesting King urged were not being heeded.

“I must confess, that dream I had that day has on many points turned in to a nightmare,” King said in an interview during the film. 

Despite dynamic pressure, opposition and criticism, King continued to fight for civil rights while trying to keep the peace. In 1964, at the age of thirty-five, King was the youngest man to have received the Nobel Peace Prize for his nonviolent campaign for civil rights and social justice. Just four years later, killed by an assassin’s bullet, King’s personal campaign for equality ended, but his legacy and passion continued to impact the future of civil rights. 

“He may be physically dead, but his spirit will never die,” said King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, in the film.

Each year on the third Monday in January, the MLK Day of Service is observed as a federal holiday encouraging people to channel King’s life and teachings to make a positive impact on their community.  This year's theme is Serve: "I WANT YOU! REMEMBER! CELEBRATE! ACT!"
#### Haines & Kibblehouse, Inc. v. Department of Transp.; Haines & Kibblehouse, Inc., In re

11/02/2015

216 MAL (2015)

Denied
EXHIBIT
32.2




STATEMENT
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE




Pursuant
to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Donald
Hillier, Chief Financial Officer of Axion Power International, Inc (the
“Company”), hereby certifies that:




The
Company’s Form 10-K Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Donald
    HillierDonald
      Hillier, Chief Financial OfficerDated:
      March 31,
      2009
161 A.3d 759

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DUAN SHAHEED (A/K/A RAKIM DOWNEY AND SHAHEED ALMUNIR), DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

March 7, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00128-CR

ROY WAYNE GLENN,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-1796-C1

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due on or before June 30, 2017. Through a series 

of extensions and abatement/reinstatement orders, appellant’s brief was most recently 

due on January 26, 2018. 

“Newly-Appointed Counsel’s First Motion for Extension of time to File 

Appellant’s Brief” was filed on January 29, 2018. In the motion, it is asserted that this is 

the first motion for extension of time sought by this particular counsel, and “another” 

thirty days to file appellant’s brief is requested. 
Glenn v. State Page 2

Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

All motions to extend time except a motion to extend time for filing 

a notice of appeal must state:

(A) the deadline for filing the item in question;

(B) the length of the extension sought;

(C) the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an 

extension; and

(D) the number of previous extensions granted regarding the item 

in question.

TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b)(1) (emphasis added). Appellant’s motion does not comply with 

this rule. 

First, the motion does not state the deadline for filing the “item in question.” Id. 

(b)(1)(A). Second, even though appellant’s counsel is successor counsel, essentially new, 

the motion should note the appellant’s full history/time on appeal and why the current 

motion requesting more time should be granted, which would include the fact that first 

counsel was removed and current counsel was appointed after so many days. Id. 

(b)(1)(C). Third, and most importantly, while counsel asserts this is his first request for 

an extension of time to file a brief, this is not the first extension requested. The motion 

must state the number of extensions granted regarding the “item in question.” Id. 

(b)(1)(D). The item in question is appellant’s brief. 

This brief was to be filed seven months ago. With this extension, appellant would

be given almost nine months to file what should have been filed in 30 days. Nevertheless, 

we are not unsympathetic to new counsel’s situation. 
Glenn v. State Page 3

Accordingly, appellant’s motion is granted. Appellant’s brief is due February 25, 

2018. However, should another motion not in compliance with Rule 10.5(b)(1) and this 

order be filed, it will not be ruled on, and the Court may abate this appeal to the trial 

court for further proceedings.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted

Order issued and filed February 7, 2018
Exhibit 10.34

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                              Employment Agreement

This AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment"), dated as of March 29,
2004, is made and entered into by and between Scottish Re (U.S.), Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") and Oscar R. Scofield (the "Executive").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, on February 10, 2003, the Company and Executive executed an employment
agreement (the "Employment Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement; and

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements and covenants herein and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto covenant and agree to modify and amend
the Employment Agreement as follows:

Section 8

     (d)  Compensation upon Death. In the event of the Executive's death, the
          Company shall pay to the Executive (or beneficiaries, or estate, as
          the case may be) an amount equal to the sum of (i) the Compensation
          Payments, (ii) the Termination Bonus, if any, and (iii) an amount
          equal to the sum of the Total Cash Compensation Executive would have
          received during the remaining Term of the Agreement, such amount to be
          calculated from the date of the Executive's death (the "Death
          Calculation Period"). Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this
          Section 8(d), where the Death Calculation Period is for twenty-four
          (24) calendar months or less, the Company shall pay the Executive
          under 8(d)(iii) an amount equal to the sum of two (2) full year's
          Total Cash Compensation. Executive shall be entitled to any other
          rights, compensation and/or benefits as may be due to Executive in
          accordance with the terms and provision of any agreements, plans or
          programs of the Company.


<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly
executed and delivered as of the date first written above.

                                        /s/ Oscar R. Scofield
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Oscar R. Scofield



                                        SCOTTISH RE (U.S.), INC.



                                        By:/s/ Paul Goldean
                                           -------------------------------------
                                        Name: Paul Goldean
                                              Title: Executive Vice President
                                                     and General Counsel
No. 09-10702.

#### Adrian Marion Smith, Petitioner v. South Carolina Department of Highway Patrol, et al.

562 U.S. 850, 131 S. Ct. 99,

178 L. Ed. 2d 62,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6165.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
No. 09-11211.

#### Colton Simpson, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 867, 131 S. Ct. 160,

178 L. Ed. 2d 95,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6471.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, denied.
160 A.3d 695

#### IN THE INTEREST OF D.R., A JUVENILE. (D.R. - PETITIONER)

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
No. 09-10606.

#### Samuel H. Vinton, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 847, 131 S. Ct. 93,

178 L. Ed. 2d 58,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5909.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

Same case below, 389 U.S. App. D.C. 199, 594 F.3d 14.
No. 12-7887.

#### Petefish *v.*Ohio.

Ct. App. Ohio, Mahoning County. Certiorari denied.
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: October 30, 2014 5 18325

________________________________ In the Matter of JOSE RAMOS, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ANTHONY ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: September 16, 2014 Before: Peters, P.J., Stein, Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________ Jose Ramas, Wallkill, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Laura Etlinger of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. After his urine sample tested positive for the presence of opiates, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting drug use. He pleaded guilty to the charge and explained that he had previously been prescribed a narcotic for back pain, improperly kept some of the pills for future use, and took them a few days before the drug test. Petitioner was found guilty as charged, and that determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.-2- 518325

We confirm. Inasmuch as petitioner pleaded guilty with explanation to the charge, he is now "precluded from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the determination of guilt" (Matter of Robinson v Prack, 119 AD3d 1309, 1309 [2014]; see Matter of Tingling v Fischer, 108 AD3d 989, 990 [2013]). Petitioner, in any event, readily admitted that he "did wrong" in retaining the narcotic instead of taking it when it was proffered. Petitioner made no effort to submit any additional evidence in his defense and, contrary to his contention, the Hearing Officer had no independent obligation to do so (see e.g. Matter of Howell v Goord, 251 AD2d 910, 911 [1998], appeal dismissed 92 NY2d 939 [1998], lv dismissed and denied 92 NY2d 1043 [1999]). Peters, P.J., Stein, Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and the petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
# Employee Spotlight: Tamy Arthur

/ Published Jan. 16, 2020
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
                Tamy Arthur                            Tamy Arthur, a certified public accountant, is assigned to the Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services business support office as a systems accountant with audit advancement support duties. Arthur comes to us with extensive experience in DLA Audit Readiness, financial accounting, financial statements, accounting systems, internal control testing, process documentation, accounting standards interpretation and business process re-engineering. She brings 19 years of experience as an accomplished certified public accountant, chief financial officer, controller and advisor including five years with KPMG LLP supporting DLA Audit Readiness at DLA Disposition Services, Battle Creek, Michigan. In her spare time, she likes to spend time doing most anything with her husband and five children, reading, kayaking, hiking and enjoys a good historical/drama TV series or movie.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Jace ArmstrongVIRIN: 200103-D-OS362-001Tamy Arthur, a certified public accountant, is assigned to the Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services business support office as a systems accountant with audit advancement support duties.

Arthur comes to us with extensive experience in DLA Audit Readiness, financial accounting, financial statements, accounting systems, internal control testing, process documentation, accounting standards interpretation and business process re-engineering. She brings 19 years of experience as an accomplished certified public accountant, chief financial officer, controller and advisor including five years with KPMG LLP supporting DLA Audit Readiness at DLA Disposition Services, Battle Creek, Michigan.

In her spare time, she likes to spend time doing most anything with her husband and five children, reading, kayaking, hiking and enjoys a good historical/drama TV series or movie.