alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[724 NYS2d 137]

#### In the Matter of Mackson P. McDowall, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Fourth Department,

December 27, 2000

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Margaret C. Callanan,*Buffalo, for Eighth Judicial District Grievance Committee.

*Edward D. Peace,*Amherst, for respondent.

*217OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by the Third Department on January 23, 1989, and maintained an office for the practice of law in Buffalo. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of professional misconduct arising from his conduct as attorney for an estate and in his maintenance and use of his trust account. Respondent filed an answer denying material allegations of the petition, and a Referee was appointed to conduct a hearing. The Referee filed a report, which the Grievance Committee moves to confirm.

The Referee found that respondent, as attorney for an estate, failed to deposit into his trust account a check drawn on estate funds, which he accepted from the co-executor; that he failed to use the funds for payment of estate taxes as he was obligated to do; and that he used the funds for personal purposes. The Referee further found that respondent, in order to obtain cash, deliberately negotiated through his trust account Canadian checks drawn on insufficient funds. Additionally, the Referee found that respondent allowed the balance in his trust account to fall below zero, made cash withdrawals from his trust account and failed to maintain required records.

We confirm the findings of fact made by the Referee and conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (a) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4]) — engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) — engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer;

DR 9-102 (b) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [b] [1]) — failing to maintain funds of a client in a special account separate from his business or personal accounts;

DR 9-102 (d) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [d] [1]) — failing to maintain required records of bank accounts; and

DR 9-102 (e) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [e]) — making withdrawals from a special account payable to cash rather than to a named payee.

We note that respondent has previously received a Letter of Admonition for similar misconduct. We have also considered respondent’s lack of candor at the hearing. After consideration *218of all of the circumstances, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for two years and until further order of the Court.

Pine, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ., concur.

Order of suspension entered.
April 24 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

HAL W. ADAMS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00035

- CV V.

HUMBLE HEALTHCARE CE NTER , Appellee

____________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on October 21, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by HAL
W. ADAMS

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 23


               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants



We   have  issued   our   report   dated   July  29,  1997,   accompanying   the
consolidated  financial statements included in the Annual Report of Vasomedical,
Inc. and  Subsidiaries  on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 1997.  We
hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  of  said  report  in the
Registration Statements of Vasomedical,  Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-3 (File
No.  33-62329,  effective  September  18,  1995)  and on  Forms  S-8  (File  No.
333-11579,  effective September 6, 1996; File No. 333-11581, effective September
6, 1996; and File No. 333-11583, effective September 6, 1996).



  GRANT THORNTON LLP

  Melville, New York
  August 7, 1997
#### Stephan B. Gleich, Appellant, v Circuit City Stores, Inc., Respondent.

[718 NYS2d 865]

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach' of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), entered November 3, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the second cause of action for failure to state a cause of action and to dismiss the plaintiffs demand for punitive damages.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The second cause of action, which was the basis for a demand for punitive damages, was properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). To state a claim for an award of punitive damages as an additional and exemplary remedy when the cause of action arises from breach of contract, a plaintiff is required, *inter alia,*to establish that the defendant’s conduct was actionable as an independent tort *(see, New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co.,*87 NY2d 308, 316). The plaintiff failed to satisfy that requirement in this case.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
#### MARY MILLER v. BERT MOORE, Trading and Doing Business as MOORE AUTO SALES.

(Filed 30 September, 1942.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Sink, J.,*at April Term, 1942, of Rutherford.

Affirmed.

*Boucher & Boucher, Stover Dunagan, and Chas. F. Gold, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Hamrick ■& Hamrick for defendant, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained through the alleged negligence of the defendant in the operation of an automobile by his representative and agent.

The Court is unable to find any substantial difference between the evidence in the instant case and that upon which a judgment as of nonsuit was sustained in the case of *Smith v. Moore,*220 N. C., 165 — a *750case growing out of the same accident, to which the plaintiff in that case and the plaintiff in this have identical relation. The judgment of non-suit upon the evidence in this case must be- sustained on that authority.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 99


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT



To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Bay View Capital Corporation:

  We have audited the accompanying consolidated statement of financial
condition of Bay View Capital Corporation and subsidiaries (the "Company") as
of December 31, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of income and
comprehensive income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ended
December 31, 1997 and 1996. These financial statements are the responsibility
of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
these financial statements based on our audits.

  We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

  In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the consolidated financial position of Bay View Capital
Corporation and subsidiaries at December 31, 1997, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for the years ended December 31, 1997 and
1996, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

San Francisco, California
January 26, 1998
Lisa R. KAUFFMANN, Respondent, v. William A. KAUFFMANN, Appellant.

No. ED 106256

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

FILED: October 30, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Kim Freter, 225 S. Meramec, Ste 1100, Clayton, MO 63105.

For Respondent: Suzan Ponder-Bates, 386 Festus Centre Drive, Festus, MO 63028.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

William Kauffmann ("Appellant") appeals from the denial of his Amended Petition to Modify Judgment and Decree of Dissolution ("Petition to Modify"), seeking reduction in his child support obligation for RK ("Child") pursuant to Section 452.370 RSMo. Child was born during Appellant's marriage to Lisa Kauffmann n/k/a Hewison ("Respondent"). The Marriage was dissolved on March 29, 2013. Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court of Jefferson County denied the Petition to Modify on August 31, 2017.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
In the Interest of: J.F., M.D.F. and R.A.F., Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. R.D.F. (Father); T.M.F. (Mother), Appellants.

WD 80915 C/w WD 80916, WD 80917, WD 80922, WD 80923, WD 80924

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: May 29, 2018

Stephen C. Pratte, Fulton, for appellant R.D.F., Linda G. Harris, Columbia for appellant T.M.F.

Mary B. Mueller, Columbia for respondent Juvenile Officer; Casey R. Berndt, Columbia for respondent for Dept. of Social Services; Casey R. Berndt, Columbia for J.F., M.D.F., and R.A.F.

Before Division One: Lisa White Hardwick, Presiding Judge, Thomas H. Newton and Cynthia L. Martin, Judges

**ORDER**

Per Curiam

T.M.F. (Mother) and R.D.F. (Father) appeal the circuit court court's judgment terminating parental rights to their children: J.F., M.D.F., and R.A.F. Appellants contend the judgment should be reversed because it is not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of parental unfitness as the statutory basis for termination. Appellants also contend the court abused its discretion in determining that the termination was in the best interest of the children. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment. We have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision, because a published opinion would have no precedential value.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b)
**Exhibit 10.9**

 

[EastKansas Agri-Energy Logo]

 

May 5, 2005

 

ViaFax # (520) 323-9177

Mr. ScottBrittenham

EthanolCapital Management, LLC

RockefellerCenter, 7th Floor

1230Avenue of the Americas

NewYork, New York 10020

 

Re:                               East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC/Ethanol Capital Partners, L.P.

 

DearMr. Brittenham:

 

EthanolCapital Partners, L.P. has subscribed for the purchase of 4,550 MembershipUnits in East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (“EKAE”). Contingent upon fulfillment by Ethanol Capital Partners, L.P. of all outstandingobligations owed under the subscription agreement and the promissory note, EKAEwill accept the subscription by Ethanol Capital Partners, L.P. for the purchaseof the 4,550 Membership Units in EKAE. Following final acceptance of such subscription, EKAE will accept theappointment by Ethanol Capital Partners, L.P. of two directors to EKAE’s boardof directors.  Such directors will haveto stand for re-election under the terms of EKAE’s operating agreement.  We understand that Ethanol Capital Partners,L.P. is making independent arrangements with certain EKAE members to providefor the re-election of Ethanol Capital Partners, L.P.’s directors.  We cannot assure you of their re-election.

 

Pleaselet me know if you have any questions regarding the foregoing.

 
|   | Very  truly yours,     |
|--------|------------------------|
|   |                   |
|   | /s/  William R. Pracht |   |
|   |                   |
|   | William  R. Pracht     |

 

 
| P.O. Box  225 |   | 210  1⁄2 E. 4th Ave. |   | Garnett,  KS 66032 |   | Phone:  785-448-2888 |   | Fax:  785-448-288 |   | Web  Site: www.ekaellc.com |
|--------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------------------|--------|----------------------|--------|-------------------|--------|----------------------------|

 

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,029]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 29, 2009 in response to a petition filed by the Wiseman Automation Employees Association on behalf of workers of Comau Automation.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of March 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E9-5905 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                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 Annual Report of Bay View Capital Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
G. Cooper, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 for the periods presented therein.

Date: March 15, 2004

                                        /s/ Charles G. Cooper
                                        ----------------------------
                                        Charles G. Cooper
                                        President and Chief
                                        Executive Officer

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Bay View Capital Corporation and will be retained by Bay View
Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification by Chief Financial Officer of Quarterly Report

I, Steven Spooner, Chief
Financial Officer of Mitel Networks Corporation (Mitel), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mitel, for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2010 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: December 10, 2010



/s/  STEVE SPOONERName: Steve SpoonerTitle: Chief Financial Officer
A00A2088.

#### FREEMAN v. THE STATE.

(537 SE2d 763)

Miller, Judge.

In August 1999, with the assistance of counsel, Leon M. Freeman, Jr. pled guilty to charges of aggravated stalking, aggravated assault, burglary, criminal damage to property, possession of a firearm in the commission of a crime, and criminal trespass, for which offenses he received first offender treatment and was placed on probation. In November 1999, the State subsequently petitioned for an adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentences, alleging that Freeman had violated his first offender probation by committing subsequent offenses. Freeman appeals directly from the felony sentences imposed.

In *Dean v. State,*
      *1*
      **this Court concluded the discretionary appeal procedure of OCGA § 5-6-35 is applicable to the revocation of “first offender” probation. Freeman’s failure to comply with those requisite discretionary appeal procedures deprives this Court of jurisdiction to *334consider this appeal.2 The unauthorized direct appeal in Case No. A00A2088 must be dismissed.

Decided July 26, 2000.

*James F. Council, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Robert B. Ellis, Jr., District Attorney, Ellen S. Golden, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*Pope, P. J., and Mikell, J., concur.*

177 Ga. App. 123, 124 (1) (338 SE2d 711) (1985) (whole court).

*Zamora v. State,*226 Ga. App. 105 (485 SE2d 214) (1997).
--.. . 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

4prll 14, 1959 

ask ii It ie 

in the horv o 

•XC~US~VS~Y r 

89, ia which you 

for a telephone 

0 says it 18 ueed 

en noelrod. 

to Vol. 11, Tuae 

as rollorer 

t pm8 or th8 

*Il ) x a ep t th o u 

a n6 do tino d in 

The etatutee 

* a o ur t, the medium th r o ugh wh ic h 

aouutlre l ot , end iron three 

00~ all authority veetoit in the 

The 

i 

uriediatlon 0r the Ooleml8sioner8* oollrt 

18 limited etr atly to *aountp buelneea*, and the inl tallation 0r a telophono in t& hoppr 0r thm aomleeionor 

do88 not appear to oome wlthln the ola8elfloatlon or 

aounty bueineee . 
V 

BPn.Frankuri&bt,Apri114,1939, Pag 9 

It 18 our opinion thst nelther tha Gvn8titutioa 

o t Tex na or s the statutes l xpraeely or inpliably give to 

the urbers or the commlealomre~ court authority to Install telephome in thair homes and charge the expense 

of earn against the aounty. 

very truly yours 

(S+W 

BY 

3. P. Wtts 

Assistant 

wPW:AW 

APPROVED: 

Gerald c. Mana (sleaed) 

ATTOIFIEYGBWERALOF TFXAS
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
  I, Greg
A. LeClaire, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
ClearOne Communications, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2008,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of ClearOne Communications, Inc.
  
 Date:  October
      14, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Greg A. LeClaireGreg
      A. LeClaireChief
      Financial Officer
                (Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 By: /s/ Nigel James

Nigel James
President and Principal Executive Officer
of Superfund Capital Management, Inc.,
the general partner of Quadriga Superfund, L.P.
November 13, 2007
 E-2