alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This  Amendment No. 1 is made to that certain  Employment  Agreement  dated
August  17,  1992  (the  "Employment  Agreement")  between  Conseco,  Inc.  (the
"Company") and Ngaire E. Cuneo ("Executive").

     NOW THEREFORE,  in consideration  of the mutual covenants  contained herein
and in the Employment Agreement, Company and Executive agree as follows:

     1. Section 2 of the Employment  Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety
to read as follows:

     "2. Term. The effective date of this Agreement  shall be September 1, 1992.
Subject to the provisions for termination as provided in Section 10 hereof,  the
term of this  Agreement  shall be the period  beginning  September 1, 1992,  and
ending December 31, 2001 (hereinafter called the "Basic Employment Period")."

     2.  Except as  modified  by this  Amendment  and any  previous  addendum or
amendment  not in conflict  herewith,  the parties  confirm that the  Employment
Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the Company and Executive have executed this Amendment
to be effective the 12th day of March, 1996.

                                       CONSECO, INC.



                                       By: /s/ Stephen C. Hilbert
                                          ---------------------------
                                            Stephen C. Hilbert,
                                            Chairman of the Board

                                                  "Company"



                                         /s/ Ngaire E. Cuneo
                                        ----------------------------
                                            Ngaire E. Cuneo

                                             "Executive"
Exhibit 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Mobius Management Systems,  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,
Mitchell Gross, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 results of operations
          of the Company.



/s/ Mitchell Gross
-----------------------
Mitchell Gross
Chief Executive Officer
November 11, 2002
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02528-PAB-CBS

KENNETH CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

USAA AUTO INJURY SOLUTIONS,

Defendant.

ORDER OF RECUSAL

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer

This matter was drawn to me upon the Order Drawing Case on November 21, 2011. 

Pursuant to the Order of Reference dated December 1, 2011 (doc. # 10), this civil action was

referred to the Magistrate Judge to, inter alia, “[h]ear and determine pretrial matters, including

discovery and other nondispositive motions . . . .”

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a Magistrate Judge shall disqualify himself “in

any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably be questioned.” In view of my

position as a customer of the Defendant and in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I

hereby recuse myself from this action. The Clerk of Court shall assign another magistrate judge

to this case. 

IT IS ORDERED that the February 3, 2012, Preliminary Scheduling Conference is

VACATED.

Case 1:11-cv-02528-PAB-MEH Document 12 Filed 02/02/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 2nd day of February, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer 

Craig B. Shaffer

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02528-PAB-MEH Document 12 Filed 02/02/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### CARBONS CONSOLIDATED, Inc., v. HALL et al.*

No. 5442.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 1, 1937.

Rehearing Granted June 30, 1937.

Writ of Certiorari and Review Granted Feb. 7, 1938.

Sholars & Gunby and G. Allen Kimball, all of Monroe, for appellants'.

Shotwell & Brown, of Monroe, for ap-pellee.

*

Judgment annulled — So. —.

HAMITER, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in Edward Parks v. Harvey Hall et al., 179 So. 868, this day decided by us, the judgment appealed from, in so far as the defendants M. L. Gans and Phoenix Indemnity Company are concerned, is set aside and reversed, and plaintiff’s suit is dismissed at its cost in both courts.

DREW, Judge

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case for the reason that I am of the opinion that the omnibus clause in the insurance policy covers the case and makes the insurance company liable thereunder. In my opinion the driver of the car causing the damage was lawfully in possession of same at the time of the accident.

On Rehearing.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

For the.written reasons this day assigned in Edward Parks v. Harvey Hall et al., on rehearing, La.App., 179 So. 868, the judgment heretofore rendered herein is reinstated and made final.

DREW, J., dissents.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02382-LTB-KLM

PENNY HOFFERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID R. POWELSON,

POWER WORLD, LLC,

B.W.L. HOLDINGS, LLC,

B.W.L. PARTNERSHIP, LLLP,

TRAIL RIDGE MARINA,

FIVESTAR MARINA, INC.,

FIVESTAR RENTALS,

GRAND LAKE MOTOR SPORTS,

PHLARE ORGANIZATION, LLC,

GEEZER CLUBS, LLC,

TRI-R LEASING, LLC,

TRI-R SYSTEMS CORPORATION,

TRI-R HOLDINGS, LLC,

COLORADO SPRINGS WASTE AND RECYCLING, LLC,

DATAGUARD USA, LLC,

ATTICUS, INC., and

TRM, LLC,

Defendants.

________________________________________________________________________

ORDER 

________________________________________________________________________

This case is before me on the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge issued and

served on December 19, 2011 (Doc 46). Plaintiff has failed to file specific written objections

to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and is therefore barred from de novo review.

Accordingly, it is

Case 1:11-cv-02382-LTB-KLM Document 48 Filed 01/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERED that the recommendation is accepted and this action is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

Lewis T. Babcock, Judge

DATED: January 9, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02382-LTB-KLM Document 48 Filed 01/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### MIAMI FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS LOCAL NO. 655 v. BROWN.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
**Exhibit 99.6**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ON RECONCILIATION OF CANADIAN GAAP TO UNITED STATES GAAP**

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of BCE Inc. 

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of BCE Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as at December 31, 2009 and 2008 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2009, and the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, and have issued our reports thereon dated March 11, 2010; such consolidated financial statements and reports are contained in Exhibit 99.2 and Exhibit 99.3 of Form 40-F. Our audits alsoincluded the reconciliation from Canadian GAAP to United States GAAP of the Company contained in Exhibit 99.5 of Form 40-F. This reconciliation from Canadian GAAP to United States GAAP is the responsibility of the Company’s management. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such reconciliation from Canadian GAAP to United States GAAP, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly,in all material respects, the information set forth therein. 

As disclosed in note (p) to the reconciliation from Canadian GAAP to United States GAAP, the Company changed its method of accounting for business combinations and non-controlling interests effective January 1, 2009.

*(signed) Deloitte & Touche LLP**1***Independent Registered Chartered Accountants 

Montréal, Canada March 11, 2010 

 

|                                                |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|
| 1 Chartered accountant auditor permit no 13633 |
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00221-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF GEORGE GARNER, DECEASED

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3 of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2013-PR-000349-3

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

the party incurring the same.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 2, 2015
Ryder Scott Company
Petroleum Consultants

1100 Louisiana                                         Fax (713) 651-0849
Suite 3800  Houston, TX  77002-5218              Telephone (713) 651-9191






                      CONSENT OF PETROLEUM CONSULTING FIRM




      We consent to the  reference to our name included in this Annual Report on
Form  10-K  for  the  year  ended December 31, 2000 for Dyco Oil and Gas Program
1982-1 Limited Partnership.



                                    //s// Ryder Scott Company, L.P.

                                    RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.






Houston, Texas
January 31, 2001
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Merchants Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Paul W. Pence, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


         (1) The 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.




/s/ Paul W. Pence, Jr.


Paul W. Pence, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer

November 13, 2004
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 3Federal Reserve Bank of: PhiladelphiaFilings received during the week ending January 16, 2021FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shedrick Wooden, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 803]

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Sirkin, J.), entered December 22, 1998, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, rape in the first degree (three counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of three counts of rape in the first degree (Penal Law former § 130.35 [1]; § 20.00, former § 130.35 [1]), four counts of sodomy in the first degree (former *866§ 130.50 [1]; § 20.00, former § 130.50 [1]), five counts of sexual abuse in the first degree (former § 130.65 [1]; § 20.00, former § 130.65 [1]), and two counts of attempted sodomy in the first degree (§§ 20.00, 110.00, former § 130.50 [1]). Defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in admitting the allegedly inflammatory testimony of the People’s expert was previously raised in the appeal of a codefendant, wherein we determined that the contention lacks merit *(People v Cook,*286 AD2d 917, *lv denied*97 NY2d 680). We further reject defendant’s contention that the expert’s testimony impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to defendant. “The testimony was admissible to establish that a lack of semen does not preclude a finding that a rape occurred” *(id.; see also People v Houston,*250 AD2d 535, 536, *lv denied*92 NY2d 983) and cannot be said to have shifted the burden of proof to defendant. Defendant failed, however, to preserve for our review his remaining contentions concerning the alleged absence of a proper foundation for the expert’s testimony and a proper showing that such testimony is generally accepted in the scientific community *(see generally People v Dawson,*50 NY2d 311, 324). In addition, the further contention of defendant that the court should have severed his trial from that of his codefendants based upon alleged threatening statements made to the victims by certain codefendants is also unpreserved for our review. Defendant’s pretrial severance motion was premised upon a ground different from the ground now raised on appeal *(see People v Reed,*236 AD2d 866, 866, *lv denied*89 NY2d 1099; *see also People v Jackson,*203 AD2d 956, 957, *lv denied*84 NY2d 827). We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Finally, although defendant is correct that the aggregate maximum term of imprisonment imposed by the court exceeds the permissible maximum term, the sentence with respect to each count is within the legal parameters. Thus, the aggregate maximum term of imprisonment is reduced by operation of law to 25 to 50 years *(see*Penal Law § 70.30 [1] [e] [vi]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Green, J.P., Hayes, Wisner, Burns and Lawton, JJ.
211 La. 262

#### LOVELL et al. v. FITZPATRICK et al.

No. 36599.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1947.

David Gertler, of New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Blum & LeBlanc, of Donaldsonville, amici curiae on applicability of Act No. 62 of 1912.

Ellender & Wright, of Houma, and Jos. V. Ferguson, II, Nicholas Callan and Walter J. Suthon, Jr., all of New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

This is a petitory action involving lands in Terrebonne Parish. The case was here in 1943 (202 La. 545, 546, 12 So.2d 267), at which time it was remanded to the district court to receive in evidence a newly discovered document which was decisive of the case.

The plaintiffs’ title was dependent upon the lack of an instrument of conveyance from the State of Louisiana to the Atcha-falaya Basin Levee District.

The missing document was discovered after the case was tried in the district court. It is an original instrument of conveyance of certain lands, including the lands in contest here, by the State of Louisiana, through the agency of the State Auditor at that time, W. W. Heard, to the Atchafalaya Basin Levee District. The document was recorded immediately after it was discovered and was filed in evidence by the defendants after this case was remanded. The signatures thereon' were proven genuine. In fact the plaintiffs have not objected to the authenticity of the instrument, which establishes the validity of the defendants’ title. We conclude, therefore, that the defendants are the owners of the land in litigation.

Before the trial of the case in the district court, one of the three plaintiffs, Miss Rosalie Duncan Lovell, died, intestate, leaving as her sole heirs the two other plain*844tiffs, William S. Lovell and Douglas Gordon Lovell. After the trial William S. Lovell died, leaving a will in which he bequeathed his interest in this suit to his widow, Caroline C. Lovell, and to his nephew, Douglas Gordon Lovell, who was one of the original plaintiffs. Both of the original defendants, Andrew Fitzpatrick and William Vizard, have died, leaving as their heirs, respectively, Mrs. Frances Blasdel Reardon and Mrs. Mary Vizard Kelly. By proper procedure, the heirs of the original defendants were made parties to the suit. But, since neither Caroline C. Lovell nor Douglas Gordon Lovell, the legatees of the deceased plaintiff, William S. Lovell, appeared voluntarily to become parties plaintiff, they were summoned as nonresident legatees to1 appear in the case, in accordance with Rule XIV, Section 3 of the rules of this court. They failed to answer the summons within the specified time, and the defendants proceeded with the appeal to its conclusion.

, For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, at the cost of the plaintiffs, appellants, and is to have effect in favor of the heirs and legal representatives of the original defendants, who have died since the judgment was rendered, and against the heirs and legal representatives of William S. Lovell, deceased, as well as against the original plaintiff, Douglas Gordon Lovell.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

# **CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We have issued our reportdated May 5, 2004, accompanying the consolidated financial statements of ArcticCat Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ArcticCat Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2004. We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements ofArctic Cat Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-37065, effective October 1,1990, File No. 33-69916, effective October 4, 1993, File No. 33-97244,effective September 22, 1995 and File No. 333-99253, effectiveSeptember 6, 2002).

 

 
| /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP |   |
|------------------------|--------|
| Minneapolis, Minnesota |
| June 14, 2004     |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-63-PB

Scott Ledoux

 O R D E R

The defendant has moved, through counsel, to continue the

trial scheduled for November 3, 2009, citing newly appointed

counsel and the need for additional time to complete discovery

and prepare for trial. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from November 3, 2009 to January 5, 2010. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(7)(A) that for the above-stated reason, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:08-cr-00063-PB Document 51 Filed 10/27/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on December

21, 2009 at 11:30 a.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

October 27, 2009

cc: Philip Utter, Esq.

Michael Zaino, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00063-PB Document 51 Filed 10/27/09 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                          58,533
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,206
<ALLOWANCES>                                       190
<INVENTORY>                                     11,036
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,000
<PP&E>                                           5,161
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,462)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,136
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,456
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,531
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,136
<SALES>                                         16,458
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,458
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (4,492)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  35
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,799)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,799)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,799)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,799)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of HPSC, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal yearending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rene Lefebvre, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(3)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(4)          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company as of December 31, 2002 (the last date of theperiod covered by the Report).

 

 
| /s/  Rene Lefebvre  |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Rene  Lefebvre           |
| Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----