alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. L. George, *Plaintiff in Error,*vs. Bank of Waldo, *Defendant in Error.*

144 So. 323.

Opinion filed October 22, 1932.

*Cyrus H. Smithdeal*and *Thomas*W. *Fielding,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Baxter & Clayton,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the Order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said *124Order except in this, that the declaration was' amended during the trial without notice to the defendant, a default judgment having been entered, by inserting therein the following language, to-wit:

> “And the plaintiff avers that it has agreed and become obligated to its attorneys to pay them such reasonable fees as may be found and adjudged to be reasonable by the Court.”

Without this amendment, plaintiff would not have been entitled to recover attorney’s fees.

Pursuant to the amendment judgment was entered including $300.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees.

Now, if the plaintiff shall enter in the ■ court below within ten days after the filing of the mandate therein remittitur in the sum of $300.00 the remainder of the judgment shall stand affirmed for the amount of such remainder as of the date of the entry thereof; otherwise the ease shall stand reversed for a new trial. It is so ordered.

Buford, O.J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Exhibit 23

KPMG LLP

Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
EDO Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.2-69243,
33-1526 and 33-28020 on Form S-8 of EDO Corporation of our report dated
February 12, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of EDO
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and the related
consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which
report appears in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of EDO
Corporation.

KPMG LLP

Melville, New York
March 15, 1999
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00118

- CV

In the Interest of a Child §

§

§

§

§ From 325th District Court

of Tarrant County (325

- 554472

- 14)

April 7, 2016

O pinion by Justice Walker

Concurrence by Justice Sudderth



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirm ed.

It is further ordered that appellants Mother and Father shall pay all of the

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Sue Walker

____________________ Justice Sue Walker
No. D-2541.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Richard Brian Simring.

562 U.S. 814, 131 S. Ct. 405,

178 L. Ed. 2d 270,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7621.

October 4, 2010.

Richard Brian Sim-ring, of Miami Beach, Florida, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Exhibit
23















CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No.
333-158205), and in the related Prospectus of El Paso Corporation, Colorado
Interstate Gas Company, Colorado Interstate Issuing Corporation, El Paso Natural
Gas Company, Southern Natural Gas Company, Southern Natural Issuing Corporation,
and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, of our report dated March 1, 2010, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of El Paso Natural
Gas Company, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2009.


















Houston,
Texas


March 1,
2010
Form of Restricted Stock Agreement (1999 Incentive Compensation Plan)




  
 Exhibit 10.16

  
 INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC. 
 1800 WEST LOOP SOUTH, SUITE 500 
 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77027 
  
 [Date] 
  
 Restricted Stock Grant Agreement 
  
 «Optionee Name» 
 «Optionee Address» 
 «Optionee Address» 
  
 Dear «Optionee Name»: 
  
 Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. (the “Company”) is pleased to inform you that you have been granted restricted shares of Integrated Electrical Services,
Inc. common stock under the 1999 Incentive Compensation Plan. 
  
 1. Restricted Stock Grant Number 
     Grant Date 
     Grant Price Per Share 
     Total Number of Shares Granted 
  
 2.
These shares will vest in two installments —                 shares on
                     and              shares on
                     provided that you are still employed by IES or one of its subsidiaries on those dates. The shares will be issued as soon
as practical but will remain subject to forfeiture as described in item #5. 
  
 3. The shares are not transferable by you, other than by will or laws of descent and distribution, until they vest. 
  
 4. If your employment with IES or one of its subsidiaries ceases before a date for vesting of shares, other than because of death, your disability as
determined by IES or because there is a “Change of Control” of IES (as this term is defined in the 1999 Incentive Compensation Plan), then you will forfeit any shares that have not yet vested. If your employment ceases because of your
death, your disability as determined by IES or a Change of Control of IES, you or your heirs will still be entitled to receive these shares. 
  
 5. Upon vesting of these shares of common stock, the Company must receive any amount it is required to withhold under applicable tax laws and regulations,
and the Company is authorized to withhold from any compensation payable to you any tax required to be withheld. The Company is permitted to fulfill any other legal requirements prior to issuing the shares. 
  
 6. These shares will be issued to you under IES’ 1999 Incentive
Compensation Plan, and their issuance is governed by this Plan and any determination made by the Compensation Committee of the IES Board of Directors. 
  










 7. This grant is subject to the terms of the Plan, which are hereby incorporated by reference. In the
event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the Plan, the Plan shall be the controlling document. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Plan. 
  
 By my signature below I hereby acknowledge receipt of this grant on the date shown above,
which has been issued to me under the terms and conditions of the Plan and the terms and conditions attached hereto. I further agree to conform to all of the terms and conditions of the grant and the Plan. This grant agreement is effective after
your signature and the subsequent counter signature of Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. 
  

									
					
	Signature:	 	 	 	 	 	Date:	 	 
			
	 INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL SERVICES, INC.
	 	 	 	 
					
	By:	 	 	 	 	 	Date:
#### In the Matter of Rafael Rivera, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 701]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Sullivan County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from making or possessing alcohol. As related in the misbehavior report, a strong odor of fermentation emanating from petitioner’s locker led to its search disclosing two hollowed-out apples in a styrofoam cup, each of which contained an amber liquid that smelled strongly of alcohol.

Substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt was presented at his disciplinary hearing in the form of the misbehavior report, written by the correction officer who searched his locker, a memorandum prepared by the correction sergeant who initially detected the odor and ordered the search and photographs taken of the confiscated material *(see Matter of Ramos v Bennett,*276 AD2d 1008 [2000]). Petitioner conceded that the contraband material was his but asserted that he had hollowed out the apples and filled them with honey as part of a religious ritual that he practiced as a member of the Santerian faith. This testimony presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of Martinez v Leonardo,*272 AD2d 736 [2000]). Given the circumstances presented here, it is worth noting that the alleged infringement upon an inmate’s religious practices does not, by itself, excuse the violation of a prison disciplinary rule *(see Matter of Rashid v Ketchum,*247 AD2d *923670, 671 [1998]). The remaining issues raised by petitioner, including his assertion that the violation of various procedural rights denied him a fair hearing, have been examined and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID** 

### 07626 **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### 07626\07626_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 07626\07626_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 07626\07626_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### x 07626\07626_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook 

### x 07626\07626_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07626\07626_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07626\07626_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07626\07626_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07626\07626_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07626\Supporting Documents\07626_Cooper ICR Map 9-7-10.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07626\Supporting Documents\07626_Cooper Mass balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07626\Supporting Documents\07626_EA - Cooper Ash Pond 1976.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
No. 10-5810.

#### Robert William Rutherford, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 938, 131 S. Ct. 349,

178 L. Ed. 2d 226,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7529.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 599 F.3d 817.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Murray Nicol, Vice President and chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/ MURRAY NICOL                                                    
|Murray Nicol Vice President and chief financial officer May 15, 2007



17
#### In the Matter of Javaughn V., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[65 NYS3d 699]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Passidomo, J.), entered on or about October 14, 2016, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and obstruction of governmental administration in the second degree, and imposed a nonsecure placement with the Administration for Children’s Services for a period of 6 to 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s legal insufficiency claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we conclude that the court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence. We also conclude that it was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility. Evidence credited by the court established all the elements of the offenses charged.

*561Appellant’s argument for a dismissal in the interest of justice is without merit.

The disposition was a provident exercise of discretion that constituted the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the community’s need for protection *(see Matter of Katherine*W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]), in light of appellant’s history of escalating delinquency and failure to benefit from opportunities for rehabilitation.

Appellant’s claim that the Family Court failed to conduct a proper dispositional hearing is also unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits.

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Richter, Maz-zarelli, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
EX-10.1








EXHIBIT 10.1




Description of 2005 Non-Employee Director Compensation




Annual Retainers and Meeting Fees. Each of our non-employee directors, upon election to our
board of directors at our 2005 annual meeting of shareholders, will receive a $25,000 annual
retainer for service on our board of directors in 2005, with 50% of the annual retainer fee payable
on or about the date of the annual meeting and 50% payable on or about August 15, 2005. In
addition, each non-employee director also will receive a fee of $1,250 for each board of directors
meeting attended in person or by conference call, and $1,250 for each board committee meeting
attended by the non-employee director. Each member of our audit committee will receive an annual
retainer of $4,000 for serving as a member of our audit committee and the chair of the audit
committee will receive an additional $8,000 annual retainer. The chairs of our compensation
committee and governance and nominating committee each will receive an annual retainer of $4,000
for serving in these roles. The committee retainer fees are payable on or about August 15, 2005.
Each non-employee director may elect to receive, in lieu of the cash retainer fees, shares of
restricted stock issued under our 1996 Incentive Plan.



Option Grants. Following our 2005 annual meeting of shareholders, each non-employee director
elected to our board of directors on that date will receive an option pursuant to our 1996
Incentive Plan to purchase 3,000 shares of common stock at the fair market value per share of our
common stock at the time the option is granted. These options will not be exercisable for one year
after the date of grant.
No. 10-7489.

#### Robert Reese Lyons, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1117, 131 S. Ct. 843,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9795.

178 L. Ed. 2d 573,

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 392 Fed. Appx. 719.
No. 10-6809.

#### Albert James Wells, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 1093, 131 S. Ct. 800,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9544.

178 L. Ed. 2d 535,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.

Same case below, 38 So. 3d 137.
No. 10-7278.

#### David M. Larsen, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1077, 131 S. Ct. 681,

178 L. Ed. 2d 506,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9205.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 615 F.3d 780.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Martinez, Appellant.

[48 NYS3d 733]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered June 10, 2014, *827convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal •possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Evidence of uncharged crimes is not admissible if offered only to raise an inference that a defendant is of a criminal disposition *(see People v Dorm,*12 NY3d 16, 19 [2009]). Nonetheless, evidence of uncharged crimes may be admitted to prove the specific crime charged when it tends to establish, inter alia, “(1) motive; (2) intent; (3) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others; [or] (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial” *(People v Molineux,*168 NY 264, 293 [1901]; *see People v Ventimiglia,*52 NY2d 350 [1981]). “[T]he decision whether to admit evidence of defendant’s prior bad acts rests upon the trial court’s discretionary balancing of probative value and unfair prejudice” *(People v Dorm,*12 NY3d at 19).

Here, a witness’s testimony that the defendant had committed a prior, uncharged crime was improperly admitted by the trial court *(see People v Scaringe,*137 AD3d 1409 [2016]; *People v Wright,*121 AD3d 924 [2014]). Nevertheless, under the circumstances of this case, the evidence was not so prejudicial as to deny the defendant a fair trial *(see People v Abdul-Aleem,*133 AD3d 867 [2015]), and any other error in this regard was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and no significant probability that any error contributed to the defendant’s convictions *(see People v Scaringe,*137 AD3d 1409 [2016]; *People v Bounds,*100 AD3d 1523 [2012]; *People v McCarthy,*293 AD2d 490 [2002]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Hall, J.P., Miller, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1717]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 United States Code Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of 
the following National Institute of General Medical Sciences Initial 
Review Group (IRG) meeting:

    Name of IRG: MARC Review Subcommittee Meeting.
    Date: February 19-20, 1998.
    Time: February 19--8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. February 20--8:30 a.m.--
adjournment.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Conference Center, 
Conf. Room A, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
    Contact Person: Dr. Richard Martinez, Scientific Review 
Administrator, NIGMS, Natcher Building--Room 1AS-19G, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, Telephone: 301-594-2849.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate and review research training grant 
applications.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. The 
discussions of these applications could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with these 
applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. [93.821, 
Biophysics and Physiological Sciences; 93.859, Pharmacological 
Sciences; 93.862, Genetics Research; 93.863, Cellular and Molecular 
Basis of Disease Research; 93.880, Minority Access Research Careers 
(MARC); and 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support (MBRS)], 
National Institutes of Health)

    Dated: January 16, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-1717 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Rafael Olivo, Respondent, v Christine Nazario et al., Defendants, and New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 789]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered January 26, 2017, which denied the motion of defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) to strike plaintiff’s supplemental bill of particulars and preclude his expert, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to permit limited discovery on newly specified claims of future surgery, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s supplemental bill of particulars did not claim new injuries, but sequelae of the original injuries pleaded *(see Spiegel v Gingrich,*74 AD3d 425, 427 [1st Dept 2010]; *Maisonet v New York City Hous. Auth.,*276 AD2d 260 [1st Dept 2000]; *Villalona v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr.,*261 AD2d 185, 185 [1st Dept 1999]). However, given that a need for future surgeries had only previously been pleaded in the most vague and boilerplate terms, and his medical records showed no indication that future surgery would be necessary, discovery limited to those newly specified injuries is warranted *(see Hartnett v City of New York,*139 AD3d 506 [1st Dept 2016]; *Villalona).*

Concur— Acosta, P.J., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 1 toRegistration Statement No. 333-112929 on Form S-3, Registration Statement Nos. 33-52782, 33-63602 and 333-72408 on Form S-3, and Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement Nos. 33-53563 and 33-53563-01 on Form S-3 of ourreport on the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule dated February 28, 2007 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s adoption of a newaccounting pronouncement effective December 31, 2006) and of our report on internal control over financial reporting dated February 28, 2007 (which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting because of a material weakness), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Duquesne Light Company for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

February 28, 2007