alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-114522) and related Prospectus of Hewitt Associates, Inc. for the registration of shares of its Class A Common Stock, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-91274) pertaining to theGlobal Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan and Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-119576) and related Prospectus for the registration of $110,000,000 of 2.5% of Convertible Senior Notes due October 1, 2010 of our reports datedNovember 13, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Hewitt Associates, Inc. and subsidiaries, Hewitt Associates, Inc. and subsidiaries management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Hewitt Associates, Inc. and subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006. 

 

Chicago, Illinois 

November 13, 2006
#### Marielisa R., Respondent, v Wolman Rink Operations, LLC, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 215]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Battaglia, J.), dated August 17, 2011, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff alleged that she sustained personal injuries when she was pushed and caused to fall while she waited at the main entrance to the ice rink at Wollman Rink in Central Park. She alleged that the incident was caused by the failure of the defendant, Wollman Rink Operations, LLC, incorrectly sued herein *964as Wolman Rink Operations, LLC, to control a large number of people, who were amassed at the instruction and direction of the defendant’s employees, and who were permitted to rush forward and push her towards the ice. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries against the defendant. Following the completion of discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of the motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of its general manager, including his testimony regarding the defendant’s general practices and procedures with respect to crowd control.

The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion, determining that the defendant failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In particular, the Supreme Court noted that while the defendant’s general manager testified to the defendant’s general practices and procedures, the defendant offered no affidavit or testimony with regard to the crowd conditions and the defendant’s crowd control at the time of the accident. The defendant appeals. We affirm.

The defendant failed to provide evidence in admissible form to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendant did not establish that it took adequate crowd control measures on the date of the accident *(see Liptrot v Theater at Madison Sq. Garden,*281 AD2d 398, 399 [2001]). Indeed, the only admissible evidence submitted by the defendant established no more than the general safety procedures of the defendant, which the evidence also revealed may have been violated by the defendant’s skate guards at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the defendant’s attempt to meet its prima facie burden by pointing to gaps in the plaintiff’s proof was properly rejected by the Supreme Court *(see Rubistello v Bartolini Landscaping, Inc.,*87 AD3d 1003, 1005 [2011]; *Shafi v Motta,*73 AD3d 729, 730 [2010]; *Doe v Orange-Ulster Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 4*AD3d 387, 388-389 [2004]). Since the defendant failed to satisfy its prima facie burden, the denial of its motion was required without regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### Christine M. Moore, Individually and on Behalf of Douglas H. Moore and Another, Respondent, v Peter W. Moore, Sr., Appellant.

In a proceeding, *inter alia,*for support, the husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Samenga, J.), dated January 23, 1984, as granted that branch of the wife’s motion as sought leave to enter judgment against him in the amount of $1,600, representing arrears in child support payments.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The 1980 amendments to Domestic Relations Law § 244 *(see,*L 1980, ch 645, § 5) have divested the courts of discretion in determining whether to enter a judgment for arrears in child support payments. The court must direct entry of the judgment unless the defaulting party shows “good cause” for failing to move for relief from or modification of the judgment or order directing such payment. Here, the wife was entitled to an order directing entry of a money judgment for child support arrears, inasmuch as the husband concedes that he did not make the payments, and he has not demonstrated good cause for his failure to apply for relief from the support order prior to the accrual of arrears *(see, Keff v Keff,*95 AD2d 888; *Coveleski v Coveleski,*93 AD2d 924; *Matter of Brizzi v Brizzi,*92 AD2d 919). Accordingly, the order is affirmed, insofar as appealed from. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
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 the Treasury

# AGENCY:

Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of charter renewal.

# SUMMARY:

The charter for the Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance (FACI) has been renewed for a two-year period beginning June 10, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jigar Gandhi, Senior Insurance Regulatory Policy Analyst, Federal Insurance Office, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Room 1410 MT, Washington, DC 20220, at (202) 622-3220 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given under 41 CFR 102-3.65, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix), that the FACI has been renewed for an additional two years beginning June 10, 2021. The purpose of the FACI is to present advice and recommendations to the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) in performing its duties and authorities. The advice and recommendations may cover specific or general insurance topics, processes, studies, and/or reports. The duties of the FACI shall be solely advisory and shall extend only to the submission of advice and recommendations, which shall be non-binding, to FIO. The FACI meets on a periodic basis, and its membership is balanced to include a cross-section of representative views of state and non-government persons having an interest in the duties and authorities of FIO.

Dated: July 1, 2021.

Steven Seitz,

Performing the Delegable Duties of Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions.

[FR Doc. 2021-14444 Filed 7-6-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AK-P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-21181

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SARAH ELIZABETH BOUNDS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-99-CR-589-1)

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

September 27, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Sarah Elizabeth Bounds appeals her

conviction for making false claims to the United States Government,

through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 287. She argues that the district court erred in

reaching a guilty verdict after a bench trial because the evidence

did not show that she falsely claimed that she owned and resided at

the home that was flooded.

Bounds has waived any argument that the home was not her
principal place of residence at the time of the flood. See United

States v. Fagan, 821 F.2d 1002, 1015 n.10 (5th Cir. 1987).

Moreover, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict

because it established that Bounds transferred ownership of the

home prior to the flood. See United States v. Ferguson, 211 F.3d

878, 882 (5th Cir. 2000). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
exhibit10-1.htm


    
 

    EXHIBIT
10.1


      AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

    


    This
Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”) is by and between Unico American
Corporation (“Company”) and Cary L. Cheldin (“Emp1oyee”):

    


    A.  Paragraph
1 of the Employment Agreement between the Company and Employee which was
effective as of December 15, 2007 (“Employment Agreement”) is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:

    


    1.          EMPLOYMENT.  Company
shall employ Employee as Chairman of the Board, President & Chief Executive
Officer of Company.  Employee shall provide to Company the following
services: Duties as needed including day to day management of Company and its
subsidiaries; and serve as President, Vice President or other officer of all
Company subsidiaries, as required by Company.  Employee accepts and
agrees to such employment, and agrees to be subject to the general supervision,
advice and direction of Company by Company’s Board of Directors.  This
Employment Agreement supersedes all prior Employment Agreements between the
parties hereto.

    


    B.  Paragraph
6 of the Employment Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as
follows:

    


    6.          TERM/TERMINATION.  Employee’s
employment under this Agreement shall be for a term beginning on April 1, 2009
and ending December 31, 2013. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may
be terminated at any time by Company for Cause or by Employee for other than
breach of this Agreement by the Company upon thirty days written notice. This
Agreement may also be terminated by Company without Cause upon thirty days
written notice or by the Employee at any time on account of the breach of this
Agreement by Company; however, in either of such events, subject to the
limitation described in Section 3.6, the Company shall pay Employee, as and in
the manner provided in Section 3.4, all salary, bonuses and benefits as provided
herein for the remainder of the term of this Agreement.

    


    C. This Amendment is
effective April 1, 2009.

    


    D. All other terms and
conditions of the Employment Agreement remain unchanged.

    


    


    COMPANY:

    Unico
American Corporation

    


    


    By  /s/  Lester A.
Aaron                                                
         Date:   April 1,
2009

    Lester A.
Aaron, Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer

    


    EMPLOYEE:

    


    


    /s/  Cary L.
Cheldin                                                    
            
Date:  Aporil 1, 2009

    Cary L.
Cheldin
Order entered April 19, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00928-CR

No. 05-15-00929-CR

No. 05-15-00930-CR

No. 05-15-00931-CR

No. 05-15-00932-CR

No. 05-15-00933-CR

No. 05-15-00934-CR

No. 05-15-00935-CR

GABRIELLE REGINA JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F14-20157-T, F14-55131-T, F14-55132-T,

F14-55133-T, F14-55134-T, F14-75828-T, F14-75829-T, F14-75830-T

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeals.

On April 1, 2016, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding the accuracy of 

a portion of the reporter’s record. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) t h e r e p o r t e r ’ s 

r e c o r d f i l e d i s i n a c c u r a t e ; (2) Official Court Reporter Mary Snider has been ordered 

to correct the passage at issue to read: 
–2–

In all of your cases, I accept your pleas and I find you guilty. In all but the 

state jail felony case, I assess your punishment at five years’ confinement in the 

Institutional Division, and in the aggravated assault cases, I make affirmative 

finding you used a deadly weapon, to-wit: an automobile. In the state jail 

felony case, I assess your punishment at two years’ confinement in the state 

jail;

(3) Snider has requested fourteen day to file a supplemental reporter’s record; and (4) the trial 

court recommends granting Snider fourteen days to file the supplemental reporter’s record.

We ORDER Official Court Reporter Mary Snider to file the supplemental 

reporter’s record within FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this order.

In our order of April 1, 2016, we noted that the clerk’s record in cause 

no. 05-15-00931-CR (trial court cause no. F14-55133-T) filed on October 30, 2015 was a 

duplicate of the clerk’s record filed in cause no. 05-15-00930-CR. We directed the Clerk to 

strike the clerk’s record filed in cause no. 05-15-00931-CR and we ordered the Dallas County 

District Clerk to file, within fourteen days, a clerk’s record containing the correct clerk’s record 

for cause no. 05-15-00931-CR. To date, the Dallas County District Clerk has not complied with 

the Court’s April 1, 2016 order.

We ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file, within FOURTEEN 

DAYS of the date of this order, the clerk’s record for cause no. 05-15-00931-CR.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Rick Magnis, 

Presiding Judge, 283rd Judicial District Court; Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk; 

Official Court Reporter Mary Snider; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNE’Y; GENERAL OF TEXAS 

. 

GROVER SELLERS 

~~ONNCY GEN$NAL 

! : 

‘I 

i 

: . 

i 

Bon. PIG& W. Jones 

cou5 ty hIa tor _ 

Dow &ir. Jone8: 

‘:. 

. 6: 

AUSTIN 

aid aa sa1ar.y the mm 

Ion. reque?t of recint 

ot ~the United %&es. 

Rowever, on Haroh 17, 

.’ - 

IV, ‘. 

For both appointments; 

42125.00 per yam. 

& ealsry vms set st 

No oompensstion was raoeivia by 

th0 wrltf3r, but $2124.00 wit3 psid to the. Assistant 

cotity Auditor for h.izl osrvioes for the yosr 0s 1943. 

'1 shkl appreciate your opinlans. upon the . 

roihiiing ,questions: 

Wl; &n the, As&tsnt County ,Auditor 1oc;ally 

roooivs $2X%00 l%r hi8 aervioes oubsoquont~, to 

'A?aroh 17, l.31,3, when the annual oo$pcnsatlon was sot 

at 82l25.00 per year? a 
, 

\’ 

I 

, 

, . 

. 

. . 

. . 

. 

Don.. Hart U. Jones, page 2 . . 

-. 

.* . 

‘. 

legally hold the orrice 0r County 

80, would I be elii@l6’ for reThe population of Chinos Counky, aooordinC to .tho 

1940 *Federal Census, 4s 8,136, ,. 

‘Article 3902,, V. A. 0. s., provides In regard t0 

oelarles .Of deputioa, assistants and olerks of d$striot, 

oounty and preoinat offloors, as folkrust . 

*In counties -having a population oi twenty-five 

.thousand (25,000) or less inhabitants, first. aooistant or chief deputy not to,.%xoeed Bi&hteen Hundred 

. ($1800.00) Dollars p,%r annum; other assistants depu- 

- ties, or olsrks not ,to exoecid l’litaen Hundred (~1500.00) 

Dollars per annun each.* * . 

. . 

In vi%w 0r tha ltitst*on on assistants~ salarias, 

as ,provided in said Artiole 3902, PI% answr yoti question 

No. 1 in the negative. We polnt out further in this connoo- 

.thn thnt~ the maxin~m salary that ,oould be allovred the 

Aeslstsnt Cody Auditor of your county undsr tho.law le. ’ 

.3150.00 per uenth, suoh oonp%ns%tion to begin on the day 

mid assistant quslitied for ortioe. Tha oo~penarttlon for 

a~ iraOti0nsl .part of n month should 80 ‘a’ proportionate part 

0r suah moathly eslery. t 

!Phia departneat has held in ~ILWZOUS opinions that 

a o.ounty~orricer~s service in tho Amy 0r the United Gtates 

doss not of itS6lr disqualiiy hFm. frV2 holding DuOh county 

offioe and reooivir~ coznpenestion thareior. ‘Qxorora, if 

you are 0thorxlse quallfioa .tor appointment to the orrloe or, 

oounty auditor of Gaines County, Texas, we amw%r your question No.’ 2 In the affirciative, as your military sarvioo in 

tho Amy Of the Vnitod States would’not disqualify you. 

.Ue aro enolos$ng horsrith our Opinions DOS. O-5831,, 

o-5791, o-5505, ena O-5017, Fn support of the next above hOl,dinE.* 

Yours very truly
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2



                           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 Town Sports International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Richard Pyle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. (Section Mark)1350, as adopted pursuant to (Section Mark)906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                (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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ RICHARD PYLE
Town Sports International, Inc.
Chief Financial Officer
November 4, 2002
#### Jean-Claude RINEHART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK; Boyd Bennett; James Pierce; Lewis Smith; James Hunsucker; John Godfrey; J. Kelly; T. Hildreth; Mr. Carliss; Mr. Wain; Ms. Harwood; Two Unknown Mail Room Workers; Dr. Paula Smith; Alvin Keller; Debra B. Morris; Ms. Barringer; Billie S. Martin, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-1074.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 1, 2011.

Jean-Claude Rinehart, Appellant Pro Se. Oliver Gray Wheeler, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jean-Claude Rinehart appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Rinehart v. Beck,*No. 5:09-ct-03019-D, 2011 WL 52360 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 5, 2011). We further deny Rinehart’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
ex10a.htm


    


    


    Exhibit
10(a)

    


    


    


    Consent of Ernst
& Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    


    


    We consent to the
reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm” and to the
use of our reports dated (a) March 18, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
and (b) March 13, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of
Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N, in Post-Effective Amendment No. 30 to
the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-61554) pertaining to
Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N, which is incorporated by reference
into Post-Effective Amendment No. 38.

    


                                            /s/ Ernst & Young
LLP

     

    Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania

    December 2,
2009
EXHIBIT 11.     STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS  
                                                                        
City National Bancshares Corporation                                
                                                                        
Computation of Earnings Per Common Share on a                      
Basic &  Diluted Basis                                                      
                                                                        
In thousands, except per share data                                       
                                          Six Months Ended   Three Months Ended
                                             June 30,             June 30,      
                                                                        
                                             1998     1997      1998     1997
                                                                        
Net income (loss)                            $198     $505      ($68)    $252
                                                                        
Dividends paid on preferred stock              82       44        -        - 
                                                                        
Net income (loss) applicable to basic                                     
 common shares                                116      461       (68)     252
                                                                        
Interest expense on convertible                                           
  subordinated debentures, net of                                      
  income tax                                    6        6         -        3
                                                                        
                                                                        
Net income (loss) applicable to diluted
  shares                                     $122     $467      ($68)    $255
                                                                        
Number of average common shares:                                  
Basic                                     114,141  114,141    114,141  114,141
                                                                        
Diluted:                                                                        
  Average common shares outstanding       114,141  114,141    114,141  114,141
  Average convertible subordinated                                   
    debentures convertible to common
    shares                                 13,850   13,850     -        13,850
                                          127,991  127,991    114,141  127,991
                                                                        
Net income (loss) per common  share                                
                                                                        
  Basic                                     $1.01    $4.04     ($0.60)  $2.21
  Diluted                                    0.93     3.65      (0.60)   1.99