alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 82 to the 1933 Act
      Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-36316) and Amendment No. 731 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the
      consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under
      individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young, LLP

    

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    December 20, 2019
#### VALENTINE v. VALENTINE.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 28, 1923.)

No. 3943.

Divorce @=>286—Invited error in alimony decree not reversible.

As respects claimed error in divorce decree in directing defendant husband to convey mining property and satisfy certain mortgages held by him on plaintiff’s property, where it was recited in the lower court’s opinion and findings, to which no objection was made, that defendant disclaimed any interest in the mining property and mortgage indebtedness, *held,*that apparently, if error was committed in this regard, it was invited, and that such portion of the decree was given by consent, which would not support an appeal.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Alaska, Division No. 1; Thos. M. Reed, Judge.

Divorce suit by Josephine G. Valentine against Emery Valentine; From that part of the decree respecting alimony, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

<©=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes

*488John H. Cobb, of’ Santa Barbara, Cal., for appellant:

H. L. Faulkner and Henry Roden, both of Juneau, Alaska (Robert W. Jennings, of San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for appellee.

Before GILBERT and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges, and WOLVERTON, District Judge.

RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.

The final decree in this case granted a divorce to the plaintiff and awarded her permanent alimony in the sum of $7,500, payable at the rate of $125 per month. It was further decreed that the defendant convey to the plaintiff certain mining property which he held in trust for her, and that he cancel and satisfy certain mortgages held by him on property owned by the plaintiff. From that part of the decree directing a conveyance of the mining property and the satisfaction of the mortgages the defendant has appealed. In the course of its opinion the court below said:

> , “The question of permanent alimony has given me considerable thought. The defendant has during the pendency of this suit, for nearly six years, been paying plaintiff temporary alimony at the rate of $100 a month, and during that time has paid out, on the order of the court, other sums. He also voluntarily, in his testimony and through his counsel, disclaims any interest in the mining claims held in trust by him, and in the mortgage indebtedness long overdue on the homestead in Juneau and the property in Douglas. This offer, which is fair under the circumstances of the case, should be accepted and made a part of any alimony awarded the plaintiff.”

This language was substantially repeated in the findings of the court, to'which no objection was made or exception taken. It is therefore apparent from the record that, if error was committed by the court in this regard, the error was invited by the appellant, and that portion of the decree appealed from was given by consent. Such a decree will not support an appeal. Pacific R. R. Co. v. Ketchum, 101 U. S. 298, 25 L. Ed. 932; 2 Cyc. 620.

The decree is therefore affirmed.
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01670-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 22 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 22 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 22 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 22 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 22 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 22 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 22 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15

                    Robert R. Schoeberl         (630) 438-3295
                    Non-Executive               Fax (630) 438-3843
                    Chairman of the Board


November 11, 2002


Mr. Gary B. Vonk

Dear Gary:

Gary, this letter confirms the Board's agreement with you regarding title,
compensation and severance payments:

Position:                President and Acting Chief Executive Officer

Annual Salary Rate:      $445,000 per year (effective as of October 1, 2002)


Restricted Stock Grant:  40,000 Restricted Shares with Cliff Vesting on
                         November 11, 2004 -- Subject to acceleration in the
                         event of an involuntary termination without cause,
                         termination for any reason subsequent to the placement
                         of a new CEO (other than you) or as otherwise
                         determined by the Board of Directors in its discretion.

Severance:               One year base salary for involuntary termination
                         without cause, payable as a lump sum. (Does not apply
                         in the event of a termination following a change of
                         control of the nature described in Section 4(b) of your
                         Change in Control Agreement, but only to the extent
                         such agreement is then in effect.)

                                   Sincerely,

                                   /s/ Robert R. Schoeberl
                                   ---------------------------------
                                   Robert R. Schoeberl
                                   Non-Executive Chairman

Agreed:

/s/ Gary B. Vonk                                     November 11, 2002
------------------                                   ------------------
Gary B. Vonk                                         Date
##### 



EXHIBIT 4.24




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
 BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT
     1




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
        2




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
       3




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
       4




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
       5




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
        6




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
      7




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
    8




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
    9




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
       10




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
       11




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
             12




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
     13




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
         14




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
        15




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
  BONA FIDE
    16




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
       17




---



##### 



Exhibit 4.24
    CONNECTICUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYBy:
    
    /s/    Karin A. LawrenceKarin A. LawrenceAuthorized RepresentativeTHE CONNECTICUT WATER COMPANYBy:
    
    /s/    David C. BenoitDavid C. Benoit, Vice President & CFOA.G. EDWARDS & SONS, INC.By:
    
    /s/     Craig A. HrinkevichCraig A. Hrinkevich, Vice President andManaging Director
 18
Case 1:07-cv-05416-AKH     Document 3      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
#### Lucia Caranfa et al., Respondents, v City of Albany, Appellant.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Doran, J.), entered September 2, 1988 in Albany County, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

On February 3, 1986 at approximately 8:30 a.m., plaintiff Lucia Caranfa was injured when she slipped and fell on icy pavement at or near the intersection of Cliff and Winnie Streets in the City of Albany. As a consequence of the fall, plaintiff and her husband commenced this action seeking both compensatory and derivative damages. After issue was joined and discovery proceedings completed, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs failed to provide prior written notice as required by defendant’s Local Laws, 1953, No. 1. Supreme Court denied the motion and this appeal by defendant ensued.

*786Plaintiffs do not contend that they gave any prior written notice of the alleged defective condition of the Cliff and Winnie Street intersection to defendant as required by Local Laws, 1953, No. 1, the absence of which was the sole reason advanced for summary dismissal. Rather, plaintiffs contend that a question of fact exists as to the applicability of Local Laws, 1953, No. 1 because of their allegations of affirmative negligence in the design and construction of the accident scene and the snow and ice removal *(see, e.g., Davis v City of Cohoes,*131 AD2d 907; *Siddon v Fishman Co.,*65 AD2d 832, 833, *lv denied*46 NY2d 714). Plaintiffs’ proof in opposition to the motion shows that topographically Cliff and Winnie Streets are located on opposite crests of a valley-like depression and that there are four catch basins at the intersection, thereby creating a man-made receptacle for the accumulation of snow and ice. There are no sidewalks. This proof clearly raises a question of fact as to whether defendant’s design and construction of the intersection was negligent so that the prior written notice statute is not applicable *(see, Davis v City of Cohoes, supra).*

Plaintiffs’ proof further indicates that on February 1, 1986, 4.8 inches of snow fell and on the following day an additional inch was recorded. When the proof of 5.8 inches of snow is juxtaposed with the testimony of defendant’s Deputy Commissioner of Public Works that defendant cleaned and maintained its catch basins which provided drainage for water and runoffs from the streets and the inability of defendant to produce, in response to a notice for discovery and inspection, any records regarding snowplowing or salting in the area of the Cliff and Winnie Street intersection or maintaining the catch basins located at that intersection, it follows that questions of fact exist over whether defendant committed affirmative acts of negligence *(see, Siddon v Fishman Co., supra).*Thus, plaintiffs have raised triable issues of fact sufficient to defeat defendant’s motion for summary relief despite plaintiffs’ failure to give prior written notice as required by defendant’s Local Laws, 1953, No. 1.

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 15 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 34 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 34 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 34 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 23(a)

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
2-82662, 2-85336, 2-94926, 33-12280, 33-16088, 33-28764, 33-45474, 33-63289,
33-64039, 33-70960, 333-14529, and 333-03139 each on Form S-8 and Registration
Statement Nos. 33-62715 and 333-05971 each on Form S-3 of our report dated
December 9, 1996, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Robotic Vision
Systems, Inc., for the year ended September 30, 1996.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on Form
10-K under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Robotic Vision Systems, Inc.
for the year ended September 30, 1996 of our report dated January 28, 1994 and
contained in Registration Statement No. 333-05971 of Robotic Vision Systems,
Inc. on Form S-4 under the Securites Act of 1933 insofar as such report relates
to the financial statements of Computer Identics Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 1993.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


Jericho, New York
December 27, 1996
Richard S. Mills, Esq. (RM-0206)

John P. Cookson, Esq. (JPC-9391)

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP

Wall Street Plaza

88 Pine Street, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 483-9490

Attorneys for Defendant

Ambient Group, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE 

LITIGATION

21 MC 102 (AKH)

LUIS F. MESA (and WIFE, MARIA MESA),

 Plaintiffs, -against- 100 CHURCH, LLC, ET AL.,

 Defendants.

INDEX NO.: 07-CV-05303 (AKH)

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF AMBIENT 

GROUP, INC. S ANSWER

TO MASTER COMPLAINT

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, AMBIENT GROUP, INC., by its attorneys, 

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, as and for its Response to the allegations set forth 

in the Amended Complaint by Adoption (Amended Check-Off Complaint) Related to the Master

Complaint filed in the above-referenced action, hereby adopts its Answer to Master Complaint

dated August 2, 2007, which was filed in the matter of In Re World Trade Center Lower

Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH).

WHEREFORE, the defendant, AMBIENT GROUP, INC., demands judgment dismissing

the above-captioned action as against it, together with its costs and disbursements and for such

other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York

Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 37 Filed 05/30/2008 Page 1 of 3
2

May 13, 2008 

Yours etc., 

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP

Attorneys for Defendant

Ambient Group, Inc. 

By:_ s/ John P. Cookson ____________ Richard S. Mills (RM-0206)

John P. Cookson (JPC-9391)

Wall Street Plaza

88 Pine Street, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 483.9490

TO: Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern, LLP

115 Broadway, 12th Floor

New York, New York 10006

(212) 267.3700

Gregory J. Cannata, Esq.

Robert A. Grochow, Esq.

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

(212) 553.9206

James E. Tyrrell, Jr., Esq.

Patton Boggs LLP

One Riverfront Plaza

Newark, New Jersey 07102

(973) 848.5600

Thomas A. Egan, Esq.

Fleming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP

One Liberty Plaza

New York, New York 10006-1404

(212) 412.9500

Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 37 Filed 05/30/2008 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 13

th day of May 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing 

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF ANSWER BY DEFENDANT AMBIENT GROUP, INC., 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which sends notification to 

appearing parties. McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter LLP

By: s/ John P. Cookson ____________ Richard S. Mills (RM-0206)

John P. Cookson (JPC-9391)

Attorneys for Defendant

Ambient Group, Inc.

Wall Street Plaza

88 Pine Street, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 483-9490

Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 37 Filed 05/30/2008 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05343-AKH     Document 6      Filed 08/09/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-05343-AKH     Document 6      Filed 08/09/2007     Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Etelos, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey L. Garon, PrincipalExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May 15, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Jeffrey L. Garon         |
|-------------------------|--------|------------------------------|
|                    |   | Jeffrey L. Garon             |
|                    |   | Principal Executive  Officer |

 

----
#### PUGET SOUND MILLS & TIMBER CO. v. LOGGIE. LOGGIE v. PUGET SOUND MILLS & TIMBER CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

September 8, 1913.)

No. 2270.

Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Northern District of Washington.

See, also, 194 Fed. 158.

Kerr & McCord, of Seattle, Wash., for Puget Sound Mills *&*Timber Co. Dorr *&*Hadley, of Seattle, Wash., and J. W. Kindall, of Bellingham, Wash., for Loggie.

PER CURIAM.

Appeals dismissed, pursuant to stipulation of counsel for respective parties, filed September 2, 1913.
#### Jorge Luis REYES-PUENTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-72896.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*588Submitted May 6, 2013.*

Filed May 29, 2013.

Lenore A. Ceithaml, Law Office of Lenore A. Ceithaml, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: NOONAN, WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Luis Reyes-Puente (“Reyes”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Reyes failed to demonstrate that his removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his qualifying relatives. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424*F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005); *see also Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003) (“We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that an alien failed to satisfy the ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ requirement for cancellation of removal.”).

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review the BIA’s determination that Reyes failed to establish ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination. *See Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir.2004). While Reyes presented some evidence that he entered the United States prior to May of 1996, his inconsistent testimony on this point does not compel the conclusion that he established the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States. *See Sangha v. INS,*103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.1997) (“To obtain reversal, petitioner must show that ‘the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it.’ ”) (citing *I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)).

Reyes’s contentions that the BIA required him to provide corroboration in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(B) and that the BIA applied an incorrect hardship standard to his application for cancellation of removal are not supported by the record. *See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey,*552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.2009) (dismissing the petitioner’s claims that the BIA performed a deficient hardship analysis on the grounds that the record “patently belie[d]” the claim). The BIA applied the correct hardship standard, *see id.,*but determined that Reyes had failed to meet his burden of proof.

DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the balance sheet and income statement and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                                  5,181
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          33,104
<ALLOWANCES>                                              202
<INVENTORY>                                            81,354
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      141,640
<PP&E>                                                 16,126
<DEPRECIATION>                                          7,975
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        151,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  27,344
<BONDS>                                                38,575
<COMMON>                                                8,535
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                             77,459
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          151,963
<SALES>                                               261,853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      261,853
<CGS>                                                 250,035
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         250,035
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       15,103
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      2,702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (11,575)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (5,252)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (6,323)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (6,323)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.74)

</TABLE>
Clear All

        04 May 2023    

#                     Navy Housing Introduces Unaccompanied Housing ‘Bill of Rights & Responsibilities’                 

                WASHINGTON - Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) has implemented a ‘Bill of Rights & Responsibilities’ for Unaccompanied Housing (UH), which outlines resident rights that are guaranteed by Navy Housing as well as resident responsibilities for maintaining the space where they            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website