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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15

                              AMENDMENT TO THE ESCO
                 ELECTRONICS CORPORATION 1999 STOCK OPTION PLAN

         WHEREAS, ESCO Technologies Inc. (formerly ESCO Electronics Corporation)
("Company") adopted the ESCO Electronics Corporation 1999 Stock Option Plan
("Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company retained the right to amend the Plan pursuant to
Section 16 thereof; and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan:

         NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of August 7, 2003 the Plan is amended as
follows:

         1. The following sentence is added at the end of Section 3:

The Committee may delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to grant
stock options of up to 5,000 shares of stock each (and 50,000 per fiscal year in
the aggregate) to employees who are not reporting persons under Section 16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or covered employees (as defined in section
162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code).

         2. The third sentence of Section 6 is amended to read as follows:

The purchase price is to be paid in full upon the exercise of the stock option,
either (i) in cash, (ii) in the discretion of the Committee, by the tender to
the Company of shares of the Common Stock of the Company, owned by the optionee,
having a fair market value equal to the cash exercise price of the option being
exercised, with the fair market value of such stock to be determined in such
appropriate manner as may be provided for by the Committee or as may be required
in order to comply with, or to conform to the requirements of, any applicable
laws or regulations, or (iii) in the discretion of the Committee, by any
combination of the payment methods specified in clauses (i) and (ii); hereof;
provided that, no shares of Common Stock may be tendered in exercise of an
Incentive Stock Option if such shares were acquired by the optionee through the
exercise of an Incentive Stock Option unless (i) such shares have been held by
the optionee for at least one year and (ii) at least two years have elapsed
since such prior Incentive Stock Option was granted.

         3. The following sentence is added after the first sentence of Section
9:

The Committee may delegate to such employee or employees as it deems appropriate
its authority to extend an option beyond termination of employment, so long as
the optionees whose options have been extended are not reporting persons under
Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or covered employees (as
defined in section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code).

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing amendment was adopted on the 7th day
of August, 2003.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

449 

CA 15-00174 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF DAWUD RAHMAN, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK 

STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (LAURA ETLINGER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County

(Michael M. Mohun, A.J.), entered December 1, 2014 in a CPLR article

78 proceeding. The judgment denied the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Matter of Sanchez v Evans, 111 AD3d 1315).

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1260 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1260

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 6301 Highway 58 in Harrison, Tennessee, as the ``Claude Ramsey Post 
                               Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2007

   Mr. Wamp introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 6301 Highway 58 in Harrison, Tennessee, as the ``Claude Ramsey Post 
                               Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CLAUDE RAMSEY POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 6301 Highway 58 in Harrison, Tennessee, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Claude Ramsey Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Claude 
Ramsey Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          38,782
<SECURITIES>                                     3,793
<RECEIVABLES>                                  160,329
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           4,218
<DEPRECIATION>                                     598
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 248,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        146,271
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,720
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   248,088
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,804
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,805
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,028
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,833
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,189
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,644
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,644
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.96


</TABLE>
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to Registration
Statement No. 333-105270 of Hartford Life Insurance Company Separate Account
Seven on Form N-4, of our report dated February 19, 2003 of Hartford Life
Insurance Company relating to the financial statements as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, and of our report dated February 21,
2003 of Hartford Life Insurance Company Separate Account Seven relating to
the financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002,
appearing in the Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such
Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the headings
"Experts" in such Statement of Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
December 30, 2003
#### Daniel DELMONICO, Petitioner, v. Tony CRESPO and Donovan Marine, Inc., a Louisiana Corporation, Respondents.

No. 4D10-3688.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 27, 2011.

Ismael Diaz of the Law Office of Ismael Diaz, P.L., Coral Gables, for petitioner.

*338A. Rodger Traynor, Jr., of Akerman Senterfitt, Miami, for respondent Donovan Marine, Inc.

*ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION*

PER CURIAM.

We grant respondent Donovan Marine’s motion for clarification, withdraw our opinion issued March 2, 2011, and replace it with the following opinion.

Petitioner, Daniel Delmonico, seeks cer-tiorari review of an order denying his motion for a protective order. Respondent, Donovan Marine, Inc., sought financial discovery of both petitioner and non-parties “in aid of execution” of an award of attorney’s fees. *See*Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.560.

Respondent asserts that this court, in a separate related case, ordered petitioner to pay attorney’s fees, in accordance with section 768.79, Florida Statutes. However, as a determination has not yet been made by the trial court as to the amount of those fees, we agree with petitioner that he may be irreparably harmed if forced to reveal financial information where no judgment has yet been entered. *See Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, Inc.,*863 So.2d 189, 194 (Fla.2003) (general rule is that financial information is ordinarily discoverable only in aid of execution after judgment).

Thus, we find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it prematurely allowed discovery in aid of execution of a non-existent judgment. *See, e.g., In re Estate of Posner,*492 So.2d 1093, 1093 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (finding “the probate court departed from the essential requirements of law when it permitted contingent creditors to take prejudgment discovery in aid of execution”).

We accordingly grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order which denied petitioner s motion for a protective order.

*Petition Granted; Order Quashed.*

STEVENSON, DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
#### James WIGGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D09-4515.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 28, 2011.

James Wiggs, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Danilo Cruz-Carino, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appel-lee.

MORRIS, Judge.

James Wiggs appeals the nonsummary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. On appeal, he contends his counsel was ineffective for failing to recognize that the State had no other evidence beyond his confession to prove the crime of throwing a deadly missile. Wiggs asserts that the State would have been unable to prove the corpus delicti of the crime and that if he had been made aware of this fact, he would not have pleaded guilty to the charge. However, Wiggs did not raise this issue in his 3.850 motion, and consequently, counsel *385was not asked about this claim at the evidentiary hearing. Wiggs may not a raise a postconviction claim for the first time on appeal, *see Franqui v. State,*965 So.2d 22, 32 (Fla.2007), and we therefore decline to address this issue. We affirm all other issues without comment.

ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.
Exhibit 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION







I, Tara Y. Harrison, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Guaranty Financial Corporation, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Guaranty Financial Corporation;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.

The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and





---

5.

The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.







Date: August 14, 2003

/s/ Tara Y. Harrison

Tara Y. Harrison

Vice President and Chief

Financial Officer
#### VIEUX CARRE PROPERTY OWNERS, RESIDENTS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. and French Quarter Citizens for the Preservation of Residential Quality, Inc. v. HOTEL ROYAL, L.L.C.

No. 2011-C-0258.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re French Quarter Citizens for the Preservation of Residential Quality, Inc.; Residents and Associates, Inc.; Vieux Carre Property Owners, et al.; —Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. K, No. 06-11164; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-0641.

Denied.

JOHNSON and GUIDRY, JJ., would grant.

KNOLL, J., recused.
EXHIBIT 23

                          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 33-54794, No. 33-54796, No. 33-54798, No. 33-95274, No.
33-95276, No. 333-13009, No. 33-78842, No. 33-78838, and No. 333-13011) of
Cellular Communications of Puerto Rico Inc. (formerly CoreComm
Incorporated) (the "Company") of our report dated February 26, 1999, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company included in
its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.


                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP





San Juan, Puerto Rico
March 26, 1999
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7519** 

RAY A. WILLIAMS , Petitioner

– Appellant ,

v.
MCKITHER BODISON , Respondent

– Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Henry F. Floyd , District Judge. ( 6:09

- cv - 02695

- HFF )

Submitted : December 9 , 2010 Decided: December 2 8 , 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Ray A. Will iams, Appellant Pro S e. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circu it.2 PER CURIAM: Ray A. Williams seeks to ap peal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the not ice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on June 15, 2010. Th e notice of appeal was filed on October 6,
2010

. *

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Because Williams failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument bec ause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Order entered September 30 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 00773 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF R .R. AND J.V., CHILDR EN On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 1 1 - 02361 - R 

### O RDER Before the Court is court reporter Tanner Joy Feast’s September 25, 2014 re quest for additional time to file the record and request to strike the incomplete reporter’s record previously filed by deputy reporter Kendra Thibodeaux

. We GRANT the motion and STRIKE the reporter’s record filed August 26, 2014 by Kendra Thibodeaux. We ORDER Tanner Joy Feast to file the complete record no later than October 27, 2014.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
#### Walter And Carolyn DOUGLAS, individually and on Behalf of their Minor Daughter, Shametha Douglas v. CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL, Michelle M. Zembo, M.D., and Charles B. Hill, M.D.

No. 2010-C-2139.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Louisiana, State of; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. E, No. 95-1190; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No.2010-CA-0213.

Denied.
#### Robert CRANDALL, Plaintiff, v. EUREKA FLUID WORKS, Third Party Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BORDEN CHEMICAL COMPANY, Third Party Defendant/Appellee.

No. 86-1741.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 15, 1987.

Decided Jan. 27, 1987.

Stephen Kimble, Tucson, Ariz., for third party plaintiff-appellant.

John Dames, Chicago, Ill., for third party defendant-appellee.

*1366Before NELSON, KOZINSKI and NOONAN, Jr., Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The district court did not abuse its discretion in its partial denial of the motion for summary judgment filed by Third Party Plaintiff/Appellant, Eureka Fluid Works, and in its grant of the motion for a directed verdict filed by Third Party Defendant/Appellee, Borden Chemical Company.

AFFIRMED.
MAJOR GENERAL CONRAD F. NECRASONC.F. (Nick) Necrason (Ne-cra'-son) is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Necrason of Cooperstown, N.Y. He was born in Cooperstown in 1911 and still calls it his hometown. 

He attended primary and secondary schools in his hometown and graduated from Cooperstown High School in 1930. After a year at Swarely Prep School in Manassas, Va., he entered Lafayette College and in 1932 received a congressional appointment to the U.S. Military Academy. 

He graduated from West Point in 1936, was commissioned a second lieutenant, and entered flying training at Randolph Field in Texas. In 1937 he graduated from flying school at Kelly Field in San Antonio and joined the 3rd Pursuit Group as a fighter pilot in the Philippine Islands. In 1940 he returned to the United States and joined the 35th Pursuit Group at Moffett Army Air Field, Calif. 

In mid-1941 Captain Necrason joined the famous 7th Bomb Group in Salt Lake City and was promoted to major shortly thereafter. 

In 1942 he was promoted to lieutenant colonel, and in 1943 was promoted to full colonel and assumed command of the 7th. His missions with the 7th took him to the Southwest Pacific Theater, the Middle East, and in late 1944 he was wounded in action in the China-Burma-India Theater while flying over Burma. 

He returned to the United States and commanded Chatham Air Force Base, Ga., and Drew Air Force Base, Fla., until 1946 when he was ordered to Germany to command Erlangen Air Base. He remained in Germany and served as chief of staff to Brigadier General Joseph Smith, one of the principal organizers of the Berlin airlift. 

In 1949 Colonel Necrason returned to the United States and attended the Air War College and in 1950 was assigned to the 92nd Bomb Wing and later commanded the 90th Bomb Wing. He became vice commander and director of operations of the Far East Bomber Command and returned to the Pentagon in 1953 as director of the operations division of Headquarters U.S. Air Force. 

In 1957 Brigadier General Necrason reported to Alaska and served on the Joint Staff and later commanded the 11th Air Division. He assumed command of the Alaskan Air Command in 1958 and was soon promoted to major general. 

In August 1961 the general assumed command of the 28th Air Division headquartered at Hamilton Air Force Base, Calif. 

His decorations include the Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, the Silver Star for gallantry in action over Burma, the Distinguished Flying Cross with oak leaf cluster for heroism in action over Java in World War II and during the Korean conflict. He has the Air Medal and two oak leaf clusters and the Purple Heart. A jet-qualified command pilot, he has more than 6,000 total flying hours. 

General Necrason is an avid hunter and fisherman. Among his many trophies is a record class polar bear he shot while stationed in Alaska.