alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*March 22, 2017*

2017-Ohio-1023.]

2017-0387.

#### State ex rel. Cowan v. Gallagher.

Cuyahoga App. No. 104972, 2017-Ohio-471. On appellant’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction. This cause originated in the court of appeals and, therefore, should proceed as an appeal of right pursuant to S.Ct.Prae.R. 5.01.

The clerk shall issue an order for the transmission of the record from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prae.R. 16.02 through 16.07.
No. 09-1335.

#### Vanessa Haldeman, et al., Petitioners v. Karen Duty, et al.

562 U.S. 830, 131 S. Ct. 86,

178 L. Ed. 2d 27,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6680.

October 4, 2010.

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

*28Same case below, 359 Fed. Appx. 777.
#### Arizona Premium Finance Company, Inc., Respondent, v American Transit Insurance Co., Appellant.

[65 NYS3d 692]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered May 2, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on its claim for the return of unearned premiums on 14 of 46 cancelled insurance policies, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff provided premium financing for 46 insurance policies under which New York City livery car drivers were insured by defendant. After the insureds defaulted on their loan payments, plaintiff sought to cancel the policies, which it had authority to do, provided, inter alia, that it gave the insureds notice (with copies to defendant). The record demonstrates that defendant received the notices of cancellation with respect to 14 of the 46 policies and therefore that plaintiff is entitled to the return of the unearned premiums on those policies. With respect to the remaining 32 policies, issues of fact whether defendant received the notices preclude summary judgment in either side’s favor *(see e.g. Crump v Unigard Ins.*Co., 100 NY2d 12, 16-17 [2003]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Webber, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
#### Dulce Figueroa, Appellant, v Skillman Realty Co., Respondent/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Brooks Brothers Inc. et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[61 NYS3d 476]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered September 23, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motions of defendant/third-party plaintiff Skillman Realty Co. (Skillman) and of third-party defendant Brooks Brothers, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against Skillman, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the terms of the lease, third-party defendant Brooks Brothers had sole responsibility for maintaining the area where plaintiff sustained her injuries. Skillman was an out-of-possession landlord with no obligation to perform repairs, and thus, cannot be liable, since the wet floor that allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall was not a significant structural or design defect contrary to a specific statutory safety provision *(see Bing v 296 Third Ave. Group, L.P,*94 AD3d 413, 414 [1st Dept 2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 815 [2012]; *Devlin v Blaggards III Rest. Corp.,*80 AD3d 497 [1st Dept 2011], *lv denied*16 NY3d 713 [2011]).

We considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Richter, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
164 A.3d 394

#### IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT G.B. (G.B.—PETITIONER)

March 16, 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.
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1 SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT Covansys (Mauritius) Limited
    
    MauritiusCBSI Financial Services Corporation
    
    MichiganCovansys Luxembourg
    
    LuxembourgCovansys (India) Private Limited
    
    IndiaBPR Management S.A.
    
    BelgiumCBSI Belgium N.V.
    
    BelgiumBPR Belgium
    
    BelgiumCovansys Canada, Inc.
    
    CanadaE-Business Solutions.com, Inc.
    
    DelawareCovansys (Singapore) Pte Ltd
    
    SingaporeCovansys S.A.
    
    SwitzerlandCovansys Deutschland GmbH
    
    GermanyCovansys Netherlands B.V.
    
    NetherlandsCovansys UK Limited
    
    UKCovansys S.r.l.
    
    ItalyCovansys S.L.
    
    SpainPDA Software Services, Inc.
    
    DelawareOZ Acquisition Corporation
    
    MichiganClaremont Retirement Technologies, Inc.
    
    OhioCovansys Acquisition Corporation IV
    
    MichiganSCS Acquisition Corporation
    
    Michigan
No. 10-5060.

#### Emanual Deleon Fields, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 901, 131 S. Ct. 235,

178 L. Ed. 2d 156,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6133.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 588 F.3d 270.
No. 10-5937.

#### James Louis Guyton, Jr., as Executor of the Estate of James Louis Guyton, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 824, 131 S. Ct. 387,

178 L. Ed. 2d 21,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6463.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 25, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 5.
No. 10-78.

#### Michelle M. Valencia, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 893, 131 S. Ct. 285,

178 L. Ed. 2d 141,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6171.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 600 F.3d 389.
Exhibit 31.2I, William W. Phillips, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Harrington West FinancialGroup, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I, are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date: November 10, 2005                                                              /s/ WILLIAM W. PHILLIPS   William W. Phillips,   President, Chief Operating Officer andChief Financial Officer
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

IN RE THE PETITION OF 

VANESSA SORIANO POWER 

PR 23-0004 

MAR 10 273 

Ccw n - A 

Clet., 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Vanessa Soriano Power has petitioned this Court for admission to active status in 

the State Bar of Montana after having been on inactive status since December 2021. 

IT IS ORDERED that upon payment of the appropriate fees to the State Bar of 

Montana, Petitioner shall be admitted to the active practice of law in the state of 

Montana. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within six months of the date of this Order, 

Petitioner shall submit to the Board of Continuing Legal Education, P.O. Box 577, 

Helena, MT 59624, proof of attendance at fifteen hours of approved Continuing Legal 

Education to be credited to the time Petitioner was on inactive status. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to Petitioner and to the State 

B ar of Montana. 

DATED this 10 day of March, 2023. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice 

03/10/2023

Case Number: PR 23-0004
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JA NUARY 27, 2016

NO. 03

- 15

- 00639

- CV

C. Y., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE J USTICES PURYEAR, GOO DWIN, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on October 2, 2015. Having

reviewed th e record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. Because

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of cost s is made.
160 A.3d 702

#### NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. J.L., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER, AND H.L., DEFENDANT. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A.L. AND L.L., MINORS—RESPONDENT.

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.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Thomas Carvel, Deceased. Pamela Carvel et al., Respondents-Appellants; Thomas & Agnes Carvel Foundation, Appellant-Respondent; Herbert F. Roth, c/o Andreas Holding Co., Respondent-Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 403]

In a proceeding, inter alia, to settle the intermediate account of four of the seven original executors under the will of Thomas Carvel, the Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation appeals, and Pamela Carvel and Leonard M. Ross separately cross-appeal, from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, S.), entered August 22, 2002, which, after a hearing, determined that the estate of Thomas Carvel and the estate of Agnes Carvel each own 50% of the common stock of Chain Locations of America, Inc.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On February 13, 1988, Thomas Carvel and Agnes Carvel executed a “stock power” purporting to transfer 115 shares in Chain Locations of America, Inc. (hereinafter Chain), from Thomas Carvel and Agnes Carvel to Thomas Carvel. Thereafter, however, no new stock certificates were issued and no other documents, such as corporate books, were amended to reflect Thomas Carvel’s sole ownership. In addition, Thomas Carvel and Agnes Carvel subsequently voted their shares in Chain.

The Surrogate’s Court determined that, even though the federal estate tax return filed in 1992, following Thomas Carvel’s death, listed the estate of Thomas Carvel as the sole *847owner of the shares, the evidence did not demonstrate that Agnes Carvel made a gift of her portion of the shares to her husband *(see Gruen v Gruen,*68 NY2d 48 [1986]; *Mortellaro v Mortellaro,*91 AD2d 862 [1982]; *Matter of Carroll,*100 AD2d 337 [1984]; *cf. Pell St. Nineteen Corp. v Yue Er Liu Mah,*243 AD2d 121 [1998]).

The court also correctly determined that the estate of Agnes Carvel only owns 50% of the Chain stock since there was insufficient evidence to show that Agnes Carvel had a right of survivorship. The evidence established that Thomas Carvel and Agnes Carvel owned the shares as tenants-in-common *(see Belfanc v Belfanc,*252 App Div 453 [1937], *affd*278 NY 563 [1938]; EPTL 6-2.2).

Finally, Herbert F. Roth, c/o Andreas Holding Co., an executor of the estate of Thomas Carvel, claims that the “stock power” constituted a binding agreement between Thomas Carvel and Agnes Carvel. However, the claim, which was not addressed by the Surrogate, is not before this Court since Roth has not appealed from the decree. Krausman, J.P., McGinity, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.
2016-1405.

#### Wetzel v. Auto Owners Ins. Co.

Darke App. No. 2015-CA-25, 2016-Ohio-5355. Reported at 148 Ohio St.3d 1443, 2017-Ohio-1427, 72 N.E.3d 657. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
# Employee Reflection:  Pyong To Hong

/ Published April 26, 2022

                Material Handler and Receiver Pyong To Hong.                            220426-D-D0441-1234                            Material Handler and Receiver Pyong To Hong.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Courtesy photoVIRIN: 220426-D-D0441-1234**What’s your job?**

Package and load RTDS property for outbound shipment.

**How long have you worked for the federal government, including military service?**

39 years.

**How long have you worked for DLA Disposition Services?**

35 years.

**What about your job brings the most satisfaction?**

It provides a stable life for my family and myself.

**What is the best piece of advice someone has given you?**

Always be honest and humble.

**What previous training has enhanced your work performance in your current role?**

MHE training.

**Where do you see yourself in five years?**

A normal person in nature.

**What was your first job?**

Tractor operator.

**Who’s your biggest influence?**

My parents and family.

**Any interests outside work?**

Travel.

**Any favorite quotes?**

“Know yourself.”

**What did you want to be when you grew up?**

Inventor.

**Any heroes?**

Thomas Edison.

**If you could choose to be anything for a day, what would it be?**

Pilot.
# 599th Trans. Bde., Partners Upload Cargo for Pacific Pathways

/ Published Jan. 30, 2020
PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii, 
Members of the 599th Transportation Brigade and partners uploaded 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, for Operation Pacific Pathways 20-1 onto the M/V Cape Hudson here Jan. 21-23.Pacific Pathways is a U.S. Army Pacific operation that involves several exercises in different Asian countries.At 750 feet, with four decks of space and about 38,000 tons of cargo capacity, the roll-on, roll-off (RORO) Cape Hudson is capable of carrying all of the cargo needed for all of the exercises in Pacific Pathways."We were glad to find out the Cape Hudson would be carrying the equipment. It is always easier and to load a RORO ship than a LOLO (lift-on, lift-off)," said Frank Viray, 599th Transportation Brigade terminal operations chief.Viray built the stow plan for the move."When you build a stow plan for multiple stops, you have to make sure that you load in a way to facilitate the loading and offloading process at each port," Viray said. "We want to make sure that no one down the line has to double handle cargo."Other terminal operations staff kept track of cargo as it moved off the pier and onto the ship during 24-hour port operations."The handheld scanners have the stow location on them," said Sgt. Nashell Mendez, 599th operations NCO. "We had to move a few things around, but there weren't any major differences from the original stow plan."Staff Sgt. Deontre Austin, 599th operations NCO, also scanned the military shipping labels. He worked the night shift."This is my MOS, so working at the port is a good way to get experience on another means of conveyance," Austin said. "Before I came to the 599th, I had worked railhead, line haul and airfields."The two big differences in working the port is that the ship is so much bigger, and we are working with different services here," he added.Once the cargo data was downloaded at the end of each shift, the location was adjusted on the final stow plan."I took the class, but I have never worked a stow plan in real life," said Staff Sgt. Andre Carroll, 599th operations NCO. "So this time I helped Mr. Viray adjust it. Next time I'll be able to input."Partners for this mission included Fleet Logistics Center, a Navy cargo handling team made up of members from four different cargo handling battalions, Military Sealift Command, and 25th Infantry Division's Port Service Activity.Although the move got off to a slow start, everything was loaded and the ship departed on time.*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command website.*
Exhibit
23.1


Deloitte
                Auditores y Consultores
      Limitada
                RUT:
      80.276.200-3
                Av. Providencia
      1760
                Pisos 6,7, 8, 9 y 13
                Providencia,
      Santiago
                Chile
                Fono: (56-2) 729
      7000
                Fax: (56-2) 374
      9177
                e-mail:
      deloittechile@deloitte.com
                www.deloitte.cl


CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-138953 on Form F-3 of our report dated June 22, 2009 relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Banco Santander Chile and subsidiaries (the
“Bank”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and contains explanatory
paragraphs referring to: (1) as explained in Note 2 to the consolidated
financial statements, during 2008 the Superintendency of Banks issued Circular
No. 3,410 which modified the presentation format of financial statements models,
the definition of cash and cash equivalent, and adopted a criterion of
provisions for minimum dividends. For this reason, the consolidated financial
statements for 2007 and 2006 have been restated to conform to the new
presentation formats required by the Superintendency and (2) the reconciliation
of Chile GAAP to U.S. GAAP for net income and shareholders’ equity and the
application thereof and (3) the translation of Chilean peso amounts into U.S.
dollar amounts), and of our report dated June 22, 2009 relating to the
effectiveness of the Bank’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing
in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Banco Santander Chile for the year ended
December 31, 2008.
 
 
 
 
 /s/Deloitte
 Santiago,
Chile
 June 22,
2009
          Una firma
      miembro de
                  Deloitte Touche
  Tohmatsu
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary Knight, Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 266]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Neil E. Ross, J.), entered on or about April 14, 2016, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure *(see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841 [2014]). Defendant’s prior felony sex crime conviction automatically resulted in an override to a risk level three, *578and there were no mitigating factors that were not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument or outweighed by the seriousness of defendant’s criminal history.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Gische and Moulton, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Mark Edelstein, a Suspended Attorney.

[56 NYS3d 356]

Per Curiam.

Respondent is a California resident who was admitted to practice by this Court in 2008 after previously being admitted in New Jersey in 2007.

In February 2016, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months by the Supreme Court of New Jersey due to stipulated findings of fact that he had, among other misconduct, failed to properly supervise a nonlawyer employee who had misappropriated client funds and had made misrepresentations concerning his partnership in a New Jersey law firm *(Matter of Edelstein,*224 NJ 31, 128 A3d 692 [2016]). Upon the motion of the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC), this Court thereafter suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of three months due to the discipline imposed upon him in New Jersey (144 AD3d 1311 [2016]). Respondent now moves for reinstatement by motion marked returnable April 3, 2017 *(see*Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [d]). AGC opposes respondent’s motion for reinstatement.

An attorney seeking reinstatement from suspension must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she has complied with the order of suspension and this Court’s rules, that he or she has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and that reinstatement would be in the public’s interest *{see*Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]). Here, respondent has indicated, in conclusory terms, that he has no intention of applying for reinstatement to the practice of law in his former home jurisdiction of New Jersey, and he has acknowledged that he is still in the process of making restitution to his aggrieved client in that state. We also note that respondent has recently relocated to California. The motion, however, fails to provide any information concern*1532ing respondent’s intentions or future plans should he be granted reinstatement to the practice of law in this state. Absent such a showing, and in consideration of his continued suspended status in New Jersey and his outstanding restitution obligations therein, we find that respondent has failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, how his reinstatement would serve the public interest *(see*Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]). Accordingly, the motion is denied.

Egan Jr., J.R, Rose, Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that respondent’s motion for reinstatement is denied.