alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Walter Rubin, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Brie County,

May 29, 1973.

*504
      *Kevin D. Cose*for petitioner. *Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Michael G. Wolfgang*and *Eugene Panfil*of counsel), for State of New York. *Richard Usen*for Erie County Department of Social Services. *Thomas F. Segalla,*guardian ad litem.

William J. Regan, S.

This is a judicial settlement of accounts of Kevin D. Cox, Public Administrator, in the above estate. The entire estate consists of 36 shares of Niagara Frontier Transit System, plus some small dividends totaling $548.75. There being no known heirs the only citations were issued to the Erie County Department of Social Services and New York State Department of Mental Hygiene, both creditors. There has been requested in this proceeding that the priorities of these claims be considered and that this court include in the final decree hereof the order of payment.

SCPA 1811 states:

“ Payment of debts and funeral expenses.

“1. The reasonable funeral expenses of the decedent subject to the payment of expenses of administration shall be preferred to all debts and claims against his estate and shall be paid out of the first moneys received by his fiduciary.

* ‘ 2. Every fiduciary must proceed with diligence to pay the debts of the decedent according to the following order:

*“*(a) Debts entitled to a preference under the laws of the United States and the State of New York.”

A creditor is not preferred merely because the debt is due to the United States or the State of1 New York or a subdivision of the State. In order for the preference the laws of the Government must, by statute, entitle these debts to a preference.

Section 24 (subd. 5, par. [b]) of the Mental Hygiene Law gives a preference to the State’s claim in this matter and section 104 of the Social Services Law gives the Department of Social Services a preference as well in identical language.

In this court’s opinion, both creditors have a preference as stated in the above section and counsel for both creditors concede that payment of their respective claims is on a par with the other and, therefore, this court orders that the respective claims shall be paid on a pro rata basis.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7699

JOSHUA CARTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ALFRED M. TRIPP, Lawyer, Court Appointee; CHARLES D. GRIFFITH, JR., Judge, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-01-1387-AM) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joshua Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Joshua Carter appeals from the district’s court order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) complaint without prejudice because he failed to exhaust available state court remedies. Because Carter may refile this action after exhausting state remedies, his appeal is interlocutory and not subject to appellate review under Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Margaret A. NORTON, Petitioner v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY;

No. 19-163

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
Independent Auditors' Consent



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Managed Municipals Portfolio II  Inc.:

We consent to the use of our report dated October 15, 1997, for the Managed
Municipals Portfolio II Inc., incorporated herein by reference, and to the
references to our Firm under the headings "Financial 
Highlights" and "Independent Auditors" in the Prospectus and "Independent
Public Accountants" in the Statement of Additional Information.
 



	KPMG 
Peat Marwick LLP


New York, New York
December 19, 1997
John Willie MACK, Jr., Petitioner, v. Kenneth NELSEN, Warden.

No. 18-9405

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

Action brought on 23 December 2004 by Belfass against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-495/04)

(2005/C 57/59)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 December 2004 by Belfass, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant in the present case, a company specialising in the cleaning of offices which has been responsible since 1 January 1998 for the cleaning of certain offices of the General Secretariat of the Council, challenges the rejection by the defendant of two tenders submitted by the applicant in respect of a tender relating to the conclusion of a contract for cleaning and general services to be performed in the ‘Woluwe Heights’ (lot 1) and ‘Frère Orban’ (lot 2) buildings.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

----
Exhibit 31.2

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a)

of the Exchange Act, as adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Charles A. Mathis,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of ScanSource, Inc.; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Charles A. MathisCharles A. Mathis, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)


Date: January 31, 2014
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018429EN.01000701.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 28.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/7 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9122 — TCCC/Costa)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 429/06)

1.

On 20 November 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018429EN.01000701-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Coca-Cola Company (‘TCCC’, United States of America), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Costa Limited (‘Costa’, United Kingdom), controlled by Whitbread Group plc. |

TCCC acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Costa.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for TCCC: licensing of brands and various trademarks used to market and sell non-alcoholic commercial beverages, sale of syrups and concentrates to authorised bottling and canning operations and fountain retailers, production and sale of finished beverages globally,

—   for Costa: operation of coffee shops in a limited number of EU Member States through equity and franchise stores, wholesale of packaged, roast and ground coffee, operation of hot beverage vending machines.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9122 — TCCC/Costa

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018429EN.01000701-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

---
# C_2018410EN.01000601.xml

| 13.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/6

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9121 — Michelin/Camso)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 410/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin (‘Michelin’, France), |
| --- | --- |

—

Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin (‘Michelin’, France),

| — | Camso Inc. (‘Camso’, Canada). |
| --- | --- |

—

Camso Inc. (‘Camso’, Canada).

Michelin acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Camso.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | Michelin manufactures tyres for cars, vans, trucks, buses, two-wheels non-motorized vehicles, two-wheels motorized vehicles, aircraft, subway trains and tramways, as well as tyres for industrial and agricultural vehicles; |
| --- | --- |

—

Michelin manufactures tyres for cars, vans, trucks, buses, two-wheels non-motorized vehicles, two-wheels motorized vehicles, aircraft, subway trains and tramways, as well as tyres for industrial and agricultural vehicles;

| — | Camso manufactures pneumatic, airless and solid tires, tracks, conversion track systems and OEM undercarriages and serves the industrial, agricultural and power-sport sectors. |
| --- | --- |

—

Camso manufactures pneumatic, airless and solid tires, tracks, conversion track systems and OEM undercarriages and serves the industrial, agricultural and power-sport sectors.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9121 — Michelin/Camso

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| --- |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
Terrance COBB, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 19-7278

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District denied.
Motions Granted; Order filed April 15, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00889-CR

____________

NOE GERARDO MORIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1306502

ORDER

A jury convicted appellant of murder and assessed punishment at life in 

prison. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel, Ellis McCullough, filed a brief in 

which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw from 

representing appellant. 

On April 8, 2014, the trial court conducted a hearing and determined that 

counsel had not complied with the dictates of Anders v. California. The court 
2

appointed substitute counsel, Angela Cameron of the Harris County Public 

Defender’s Office, to represent appellant in this appeal. Accordingly, we issue 

the following order:

We GRANT Ellis McCullough’s motion to withdraw and substitute Angela 

Cameron as appellant’s appointed counsel. We STRIKE the Anders brief filed in 

this court on March 10, 2014. 

On April 9, 2014, appellant’s newly appointed counsel, Angela Cameron, 

filed a motion asking that we reset the briefing schedule. We GRANT the motion. 

The new appellant’s brief shall be due on or before May 15, 2014, subject to any 

extension of time that may be granted.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Brown.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Solitario Resources 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, James R. Maronick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.



|Date: March 30, 2003
By: /s/ James R. MaronickJames R. Maronick
Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MacKendy STRACHAN, Petitioner v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 19-5439

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Daniel J. WHITT, Petitioner v. Michele BUCKNER, Warden.

No. 19-5769

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018223EN.01001201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 27.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/12 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8975 — CVC Capital Partners/Mehiläinen Holding)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 223/10)

1.

On 20 June 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018223EN.01001201-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS S.A. (‘CVC’, Luxembourg), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Mehiläinen Holding AB (‘Mehiläinen’, Sweden). |

CVC acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Mehiläinen by the way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for CVC: managing investment funds and platforms,

—   for Mehiläinen: holding company of Mehiläinen Oy, which provides healthcare and social care services in Finland.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2018223EN.01001201-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.8975 — CVC Capital Partners/Mehiläinen Holding

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018223EN.01001201-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2018223EN.01001201-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
Eric C. BURGIE, Petitioner, v. ARKANSAS.

No. 19-5658

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

*406Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied.
EXHIBIT 10.5



EXHIBIT 10.5





AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


            This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment’) dated as of January 1, 2004, is made by and between Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Ronald
P. Soltman (the “Executive”).


            WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive executed a certain Employment  Agreement (the “EA”) dated as of June 1, 1998, to secure the services of the Executive as its Executive
Vice President, General Counsel  and Secretary; and


            WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish the Executive’s base salary set forth in Section 6(a) of the EA to be increased to $495,000, effective as of January 1, 2004.


            NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants herein contained, the Company and the Executive hereby agree that the EA is amended as follows:


            1.         Defined Terms.  Except for those terms defined above, the definitions of capitalized terms used in this Amendment are as provided in
the EA.


            2.         Amendment to Section 6(a).  Section 6(a) of the EA entitled “Base Salary” is hereby deleted and replaced with the
following new Section 6(a):





                        “(a).  Base Salary.  The Executive’s base salary hereunder, from July 1, 2001 to December 31,
2003, shall be $450,000 per year, payable semi-monthly. Effective  January 1, 2004, the Executive’s base salary hereunder shall be $495,000 per year, payable semi-monthly. The Board shall review such base salary at least annually and make such adjustment
from time to time as it may deem advisable, but the base salary shall not at any time be reduced from the base salary in effect from time to time.”


            3.         Ratification.  All other provisions of the EA remain unchanged and are hereby ratified by the Company and the Executive.








- 2 -





            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by  its duly authorized officer and the Executive has executed this Amendment, each as of the day and year first
set forth above.



                                                                                   
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.



                                                                                   
By:       /s/ Charles N. Martin, Jr.                     


                                                           
                                    Charles N. Martin, Jr.

                                                                                               
Chairman of the Board and

                                                                                               
Chief Executive Officer



                                                                                   
Executive:






                                                                                   
/s/ Ronald P. Soltman                                      

                                                                                   
Ronald P. Soltman
Brady DANIEL, Petitioner v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

No. 19-5409

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2018288EN.01000202.xml

| 16.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9021 — DNB Bank/Orkla/Optimizd)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 288/04)

On 8 August 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9021. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9021. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---