alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 23.01


                   Consent of Independent Public Accountants
   

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report on the June 30, 1997 consolidated financial state-      
ments of Comshare, Incorporated and subsidiaries dated September 23, 1997,
included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Form S-8 and
S-3 registration statements (File No. 33-6730, File No. 33-9755-3, File No.
33-28437, File No. 33-27002, File No. 33-37564, File No. 33-85720, File No.
33-87706, File No. 33-87708, File No. 33-86908 and File No. 33-65109).

    





                                                     /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
                                                     -------------------------- 
                                                        ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP





Detroit, Michigan
     September 25, 1997
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 2895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1043]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-129-001]


Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.; Notice of Filing

January 5, 2001.
    Take notice that on December 29, 2000, Consolidated Edison Company 
of New York, Inc. (Con Edison), tendered for filing a revised rate 
schedule in the above-listed docket.
    Con Edison states that a copy of this filing has been served by 
mail upon NYPA.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before January 19, 2001. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically 
via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 
the instructions on the Commission's web site at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-1043 Filed 1-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### STRANG, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN EL. RY. CO. et al., Appellants.

(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.

July 2, 1894.)

Action by Louisa L. Strang against the Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company and others. Davies & Rapallo, for appellants. J. E. Parsons, for respondent.

No opinion. The judgment herein must be affirmed, with costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-14176

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 7, 2011.

Lisa A. Hirsch, Anne R. Schultz, Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney, Alicia E. Shick, Arimentha R. Walkins, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy Cone, Anthony John Natale, Samuel J. Randall, Kathleen M. Williams, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Rafael Nunez appeals his convictions for health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347 and 2. Nunez asserts the district court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence of Marcel Li’s prior criminal convictions for medicare fraud and money laundering, and Alberto Valdes’ prior criminal conviction for money laundering.1 Nunez claims this evidence would have supported his defense that he had no knowledge of the fraud, and that he was duped into the scheme by these two “professional con-artists.” After review, we affirm Nunez’s conviction.2

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded Li and Valdes’ prior criminal convictions. First, as conceded by Nunez, the convictions were not admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Further, the evidence was not offered to attack the credibility of Li or Valdes, who *835were not witnesses at trial and did not make statements submitted into evidence. *See*Fed.R.Evid. 609. Lastly, the evidence was not relevant to an issue at trial because it was not probative of whether Nunez was unaware of the charged fraud as he contended. Notably, Nunez offered other evidence showing that Li and Valdes were involved in the offense, which the Government did not dispute. Accordingly, we affirm Nunez’s convictions.3

AFFIRMED.

1

. Nunez claims Li and Valdes were the masterminds behind the fraudulent scheme. Li and Valdes were not charged in the indictment and did not testify at Nunez’s trial.

2

. We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. Docampo,*573 F.3d 1091, 1096 (11th Cir.2009), ce*rt. denied,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2342, 176 L.Ed.2d 564 (2010).

3

. We note that even if the district court erred in excluding the evidence, the error was harmless as there was overwhelming evidence of Nunez’s guilt, and the jury did not find credible his defense that he was merely a "patsy” of Li and Valdes. *See United States v. Guzman,*167 F.3d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir.1999) ("[ojverwhelming evidence of guilt is one factor that may be considered in finding harmless error.”); *see also United States v. Phaknikone,*605 F.3d 1099, 1109 (11th Cir.2010) (holding that an evidentiary error is harmless if it did not have a “substantial and injurious effect” on the jury's verdict).
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 11-1611

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

$8,440,190.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,

Defendant In Rem,

ROBERT HOVITO VAN BOMMEL DUYZING,

Claimant, Appellant.

 ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on June 17, 2013 is amended

as follows:

On page 33, line 30, replace "he" with "the"
#### Ali Howard, Appellant, v George Kiskiel, Respondent.

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff seeks to recover for personal injuries he sustained while a passenger in an automobile owned by and stolen from defendant. Special Term properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for common-law negligence because at common law, the owner of an automobile who leaves his keys in his car is not liable for the negligence of a thief who steals the automobile; "the use of the car by the thief intervened between the occurrence of the owner’s negligence and the thief s unskilled driving” *(Zwerdling v Gillis,*99 AD2d 564; *see also, Berk v Hill,*126 AD2d 920, 921, *Iv denied*70 NY2d 602; *Beck v Coby,*58 AD2d 565).

The court erred, however, in dismissing the cause of action for negligence based upon an alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210 (a), commonly referred to as the "key in *951the ignition statute”, because plaintiff came forward with evidentiary proof in admissible form which demonstrates the existence of questions of fact with respect to the location from which the vehicle was stolen and whether the keys were left in the ignition *(see,*Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1100, 1210 [a]). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Parker, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
MANDATE

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00785-CV

In the Interest of Zachary Cardiff Sisk, 

an Adult Disabled Child

Appealed from the 257th District Court 

of Harris County. (Trial Court No. 

2012-56772). Memorandum opinion 

delivered by Justice Boyce. Justices 

Jamison and Donovan also participating.

TO THE 257TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals on October 30, 2014, the cause upon appeal to 

revise or reverse your judgment was determined. Our Court of Appeals made its 

order in these words:

This cause, an appeal by appellant, Zachary Cardiff Sisk, from the order of 

dismissal in favor of appellees, Leslee Cardiff Sisk and Wallace T. Sisk, signed, 

June 7, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the 

record and find error in the order of dismissal. We therefore order the order of 

dismissal of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for 

proceedings in accordance with this court’s opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellees, Leslee Cardiff Sisk and Wallace T. Sisk.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said 

Court in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost, Chief Justice of our Fourteenth 

Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Houston, August 4, 

2015.
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Parts 1 and 90 
          - [WT Docket No. 99-87; RM-9332; RM-9405; RM-9705; FCC 00-403] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

On January 2, 2001, (66 FR 33), the Commission published final rules in the Report and Order, which revised the rules governing which wireless telecommunications services licenses are potentially auctionable and its determinations of the appropriate licensing scheme for new and existing services. This document corrects the instructional paragraph. 

# DATES:

Effective March 2, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leora Hochstein or William Huber, Attorneys, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-0660. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Commission published a document amending part 90 in the                     **Federal Register**                     of January 2, 2001 (66 FR 33). This document corrects the                     **Federal Register**                     as it appeared. In rule FR Doc. 01-00040 published on January 2, 2001 (66 FR 33), the Commission is correcting § 90.179 to reflect the correct paragraph designation and replace text that was inadvertently omitted.                 

In rule FR Doc. 01-00040 published on January 2, 2001 (66 FR 33) make the following correction: 

# PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES 

§ 90.179 

1. On page 55, in the first column, instruction number 4, and the regulatory text is corrected to read as follows: 

4. Section 90.179 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 90.179 

* * * * *

(i) The provisions of this section do not apply to licensees authorized to provide commercial mobile radio service under this part, including licensees authorized to use channels transferred or assigned pursuant to § 90.621(e)(2).

Federal Communications Commission. 

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 01-10630 Filed 4-27-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
EX-10.16





 Exhibit 10.16 
 



 
  

			
	TO:	  	CRAIG CAPPEL
		
	FROM:	  	STEVE ESTES
		
	DATE:	  	JULY 8, 2019
		
	SUBJECT:	  	PLANNED ISSUANCE OF RESTRICTED STOCK

  
  

As we have discussed, a critical component of our ongoing business strategy for Reynolds Consumer Products LLC will be to explore opportunities for the
business that could lead to an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the business or potentially a divestiture of the associated business entities. Your assistance is needed by Reynolds as we work through this process to help prepare the business for a
successful transaction. 
 If the IPO is successful, the company whose shares are registered in the IPO will issue you Restricted Stock at the completion of
the IPO. The number of shares in this grant equals $231,750 divided by the IPO price as of the date of the grant, rounded to the nearest whole share. Vesting for the restricted stock will occur over a 3-year
period with 1/3 vesting after 12-months from the successful IPO; 1/3 vesting after 24-months from the successful IPO; and, 1/3 vesting after 36-months from the successful IPO. You must be an employee of the Company or one of its affiliates on the applicable vesting date to receive such shares. 

Should there be a business sale instead of an IPO, you will receive $231,750 in cash in lieu of Restricted Stock. For purposes hereof, a business sale means a
sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Company or a sale of more than 50% of the equity of the Company or such entity. This cash payment will be made in the following manner: 

1⁄2 Payable
30-days post-closing of the sale 
 1⁄2 Payable 180-days post-closing of the sale 
 This memo does not change your
status as an “at-will” employee and does not guarantee your employment for any specific period of time. The Company reserves the right to terminate you at any time and for any or no reason. Any
Restricted Stock issued or cash payment made pursuant to this memo shall be subject to regular tax withholdings and other authorized deductions and will not be treated as compensation for any purpose under any benefit plans or programs, unless
statutorily required. 
 This memo is provided to summarize the agreement that has been reached in this regard between the Company and the employee. Should
an IPO be completed, a formal grant letter for the Restricted Stock will be provided to the employee that documents all terms and conditions related to the grant. 

//s// Steve Estes
# Affirmative Asylum Interview Scheduling

The Asylum Division seeks to prioritize the most recently filed affirmative asylum applications when scheduling affirmative asylum interviews. 

USCIS’ predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, first established the “last in, first out” (LIFO) interview scheduling approach as part of the asylum reforms of 1995 (PDF, 22.31 KB) (PDF, 22.31 KB). The aim is to deter individuals from using the asylum backlog solely to obtain employment authorization by filing frivolous, fraudulent, or otherwise non-meritorious asylum applications.

Giving priority to recent filings typically allows USCIS to promptly place  individuals into removal proceedings if USCIS does not grant the asylum application, which reduces the incentive to file for asylum solely to obtain employment authorization.

USCIS schedules affirmative asylum interviews along two tracks simultaneously.

On the first track, USCIS generally schedules asylum interviews in the following order of priority:
                - First priority : Applications that were scheduled for an interview, but the interview had to be rescheduled at the applicant’s request or the needs of USCIS.
                - Second priority : Applications that have been pending 21 days or fewer.
                - Third priority : All other pending affirmative asylum applications, starting with newer filings and working back towards older filings.

Workload priorities related to border enforcement, statutory requirements, and litigation obligations affect USCIS’ ability to schedule all new applications for an interview within 21 days.

On the second track, USCIS assigns some of its asylum officers to complete affirmative asylum applications pending in the backlog, starting with the oldest applications and working forward. This permits some of the oldest pending applications to be completed in chronological order.

Asylum office directors may consider, on a case-by-case basis, an urgent request to be scheduled for an interview outside of the priority order listed above. Please submit any urgent interview scheduling requests in writing to the asylum office with jurisdiction over your application. Go to the USCIS Service and Office Locator page for contact information.

For asylum applicants who live far from an asylum office, asylum offices schedule asylum interviews at “circuit ride” locations, which are often USCIS field offices, as resources permit. Please contact the asylum office with jurisdiction over your application for more detailed information.

Note that this scheduling priority approach applies to affirmative asylum interviews, but not to Asylum Merits Interviews. See the Asylum Merits Interview with USCIS: Processing After a Positive Credible Fear Determination page for more information.

03/29/2024

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Marcelino, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), rendered December 5, 1985, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the hearing court’s finding that one of the occupants of the apartment in which the defendant was arrested had the capacity and did in fact voluntarily and knowingly consent to a search of all the rooms in the apartment *(see, People v Cosme,*48 NY2d 286). Therefore, upon entering the apartment, the police could properly pursue the defendant, who had darted into a back room, and they could then enter the back room in which the defendant and drugs and drug paraphernalia were found.

The defendant’s further argument that the evidence against him was insufficient is unpersuasive. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), the jury could have found that the defendant "exercised sufficient dominion and control to be deemed in possession” of the drugs and the drug paraphernalia *(People v Watson,*56 NY2d 632, 634; *see, People v Phiefer,*43 NY2d *654719). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The other contentions raised by the defendant are without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 Name
    
    JurisdictionQuinStreet Insurance Agency, Inc.
    
    FloridaQuinStreet Europe Ltd. (f/k/a MWR Systems, Ltd.)
    
    U.K.QuinStreet Software India Private Limited
    
    IndiaQuinStreet Cayman Islands Ltd.
    
    C.I.QuinStreet Brasil Online Marketing
E Media LTDA (5-2-2011)
    
    BrazilQuinStreet Media, Inc.
    
    CAQuinStreet Properties, Inc.
    
    CA3041486 Nova Scotia Company
    
    Nova ScotiaWorldWide Learn, Inc.
    
    AlbertaQuinStreet LLC
    
    IllinoisHQ Publications LLC
    
    Illinois
<PAGE>   1
                                 EXHIBIT 10(l)

                               Amendment No. 3 to
             Metatec Corporation 1992 Directors' Stock Option Plan


         The Metatec Corporation 1992 Directors' Stock Option Plan (the
"Original Plan"), as previously amended by Amendment No. 1 dated March 21, 1994
("Amendment No. 1"), and Amendment No. 2 dated January 25, 1995 (together with
the Original Plan, collectively, the "Plan"), is hereby amended pursuant to the
following provisions:

         Section 1.       Definitions.
                          ------------

         All capitalized terms used in this amendment which are not otherwise
defined herein shall have the respective meanings given such terms in the Plan.

         Section 2.       Annual Grants.
                          --------------

         The annual Option grants provided for in Section 5 of the Original
Plan, as amended by Section 3 of Amendment No. 1, shall continue through the
first seven annual meetings of the shareholders of the Company following the
effective date of the Original Plan.

         Section 3.       Effective Date; Construction.
                          -----------------------------

         The effective date of this amendment is January 24, 1996, and this
amendment shall be deemed to be a part of the Plan as of such date.  In the
event of any inconsistencies between the provisions of the Plan and this
amendment, the provisions of this amendment shall control.  Except as modified
by this amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect without
change.

         This amendment shall be submitted to the shareholders of the Company
for their approval as soon as practicable, but in any event not later than 12
months after this amendment has been approved by the board of directors of the
Company.  Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph or any other provisions of
this amendment to the contrary, if this amendment is not approved by the
shareholders of the Company within such 12-month period, this amendment shall
automatically become null and void and have no further force or effect, and the
Plan shall continue in effect without this amendment.
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 Interior

###### U.S. Geological Survey

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

To obtain copies of the survey, contact the Bureau clearance officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 807 National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192, telephone (703) 648-7313.

Dated: April 10, 2001.

Dennis B. Fenn,

Associate Director for Biology.

[FR Doc. 01-10294  Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-Y7-M