alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130182 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130182 

 COA: 257557 

Wayne CC: 02-014804-01

HANS LEE THOMAS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of October 18, 2006, the application for leave to appeal the November 1, 

2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

People v Smith (Docket No. 130353). On order of the Court, the case having been 

decided on June 20, 2007, 478 Mich 292 (2007), the application is again considered, and 

it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be 

reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would remand this case for correction of the judgment of sentence. 

p1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2007 

 Clerk
#### AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. Billy Carl STEPHENS, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant, Rory Ross, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-20192.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 25, 1999.

*957John Francis Sullivan, III, Reagan Mark Brown, Fulbright *&*Jaworski, Houston, TX, William Wendell Hall, Fulbright & Jaworski, San Antonio, TX, for American Home Assur. Co.

James Bradley Lewis, Glover, Anderson, Chandler & Uzick, Peter M. Kelly, Miller, Criaco & Kelly, Houston, TX, for Stephens and Ross.

James Richard Harmon, Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, Dallas, TX, for RLI Ins. Co. '

Before REAVLEY, POLITZ and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The facts of this case are set forth in detail in our original opinion, *American Home*As*surance Co. v. Stephens,*130 F.3d 123 (5th Cir.1997). In that opinion* we reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of American Home Assurance Company, concluding that the provision in the insurance policy, limiting coverage for a therapist’s non-sexual misconduct because unrelated sexual misconduct occurred in the course of professional treatment, was against public policy.1 Judge Reavley dissented, being persuaded that Texas courts would not find the insurance provision to be contrary to public policy.2

On panel rehearing, we withdrew our prior opinion and certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Texas:

> Whether it is against public policy for an insurer to limit coverage for a therapist’s non-sexual misconduct because sexual misconduct is alleged to have occurred in the same or related course of professional treatment, even though sexual misconduct is immaterial to the non-sexual misconduct claims asserted.3

The Supreme Court of Texas accepted our certification and answered the certified question in the negative,' concluding that Judge Reavley correctly applied Texas law in his dissent to the original panel opinion.4 Therefore,, in this diversity jurisdiction action, being informed that the Supreme Court of Texas would not find the insurance provision before us to be contrary to public policy, and because the other claims of alleged error are without merit, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1

. *Id.*at 126-28.

2

. *Id.*at 128-30 (Reavley, J., dissenting).

3

. *American Home Assurance Co. v. Stepfans,*140 F.3d 617 (5th Cir.1998) (panel rehearing).

4

*. American Home Assurance Co. v. Stephens,*No. 98-0396, 1998 WL 831250 (Tex. Dec.3,1998) (per curiam).
**BLUE
        MOON INVESTMENTS**
 A
        Nevada
        Corporation
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 The
        undersigned, David Ward, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
        of
        Blue Moon Investments, hereby 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
                  annual report on Form 10-KSB of Blue Moon Investments for the period
                  ended
                  September 30, 2006 (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
                  Blue Moon
                  Investments.
 
 
 
 
 Dated
        December 22, 2006  /s/ 
David
        Ward,
 Chief
        Executive Officer and
 Chief
        Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

MARKALE ALSAMAD SOWELL,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 145 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

MARKALE ALSAMAD SOWELL,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 146 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 2014, the Application for Bail and the Petition

for Allowance of Appeal are DENIED.
#### In the Matter of New York Foundation for Senior Citizens, Guardian Services, Inc., Respondent, as the Guardian of the Personal Needs and Property Management of Ronald Schoon, an Incapacitated Person, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 288]

*318Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis GangelJacob, J.), entered September 12, 2003, which, in a proceeding under Mental Hygiene Law article 81, granted the guardian’s motion to be discharged to the extent of relieving it of most of its responsibilities, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Supreme Court appointed the New York Foundation for Senior Citizens the guardian in March 2003 with the usual powers over the incapacitated individual’s person and property, including the power to defend him in a pending eviction proceeding alleging that the police had found drugs, weapons and live ammunition in his apartment. In June 2003, based upon allegations that the incapacitated person had threatened to kill the guardian’s caseworkers with guns he keeps in his apartment, the court had the incapacitated person brought before it, and, after a hearing, referred him to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.43). Several days later, the hospital found the incapacitated person not dangerous to himself or others, and it released him. In August, the guardian made the instant motion to be discharged, alleging, inter alia, that the incapacitated person had threatened to shoot and kill one of its caseworkers. Based on that allegation, the prior proceedings herein and its recollection of the incapacitated person on the prior occasions he had appeared in court, the court found that while he remains in need of a guardian, “his hostile, threatening and perhaps dangerous personality makes it unwise and perhaps impossible for any guardian to safely render services.” Thereupon, the court limited the guardian’s responsibilities to responding to written requests personally made by the incapacitated person, being present at any eviction of the incapacitated person and reporting to the court with respect thereto, assisting in finding shelter for the incapacitated person if requested, inquiring of the Veterans Administration concerning any guardianship services it might be able to provide, and nominating a substitute guardian or suggesting a substitute “plan of action in this unusual and troubling case.” The Mental Hygiene Legal Service appeals, arguing that under Mental Hygiene Law § 81.36, the court lacked authority to restore powers to the incapacitated person without holding a hearing and without a finding that he had regained the capacity to exercise them, and that the guardian’s safety is not a ground for modifying its responsibilities. We reject this argument, and hold that the guardian’s safety is a ground for modifying its responsibilities. No hearing was necessary given a record sufficient to show that respondent’s resistance to the guardianship *319was such as to make the provision of services impossible. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.
Exhibit  23.2





CONSENT  OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-46008, 333-66434, and 333-113692) pertaining  to the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan, Form S-8 (No. 333-117003) pertaining to the  Findwhat.com 2004 Stock Incentive Plan and the EMI Replacement Option Plan,  Form S-3 (Nos. 333-110067, 333-102436, 333-76144, 333-115245, 333-115247, and  333-118823), and Form SB-2 (No. 333-47240) and related prospectuses of our  report dated March 16, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial  statements and schedule of MIVA, Inc. (formerly FindWhat.com, Inc.) included in  this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.





|               |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|-------------- |  | ---------------------
|               |  |                      
|Tampa, Florida |  |                      
|March 10, 2006 |  |                      




---
EXHIBIT 10(f)(2)

                                AMENDMENT NO 1
                                      TO
                               1997 RESTATEMENT
                                      OF
                               XEROX CORPORATION
                    UNFUNDED SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN


                             W I T N E S S E T H:
                             - - - - - - - - - -

WHEREAS, Xerox Corporation (the "Company") has adopted the Unfunded
Supplemental Retirement Plan, which is presently set forth in the "1997
Restatement of Xerox Corporation Unfunded Supplemental Retirement Plan," (the
"Plan")

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan,

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

The first full paragraph in Section 6. A. following subsection (b) is hereby
amended to read in its entirety as follows:

1.  "'Average Monthly Compensation' shall be determined under RIGP without
    regard to the dollar limitation contained in the Plan as required by
    Section 401(a)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,
    or any successor thereto; and, notwithstanding the above, shall also
    include any compensation provided under the Xerox Corporation CEO
    Challenge Bonus Program."

The effective date of this amendment is as of the date hereof.  In all other
respects the Plan shall remain unchanged.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed and
its corporate seal affixed this 17th day of March, 2000.

                                         XEROX CORPORATION



                                         BY: /s/ Patricia M. Nazemetz
                                             ---------------------------
                                                    Vice President
ATTEST:

/s/ Martin S. Wagner
-------------------------
   Assistant Secretary
<PAGE>

                                  AMENDMENT TO
               EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1996
                                     BETWEEN
                              MICRO WAREHOUSE, INC.
                                       AND
                              LINWOOD A. LACY, JR.


     This Amendment is made as of the 1st day of October, 1996 between Micro
Warehouse, Inc. and Linwood A. Lacy, Jr.

     WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into an Employment Agreement dated as
of September 4, 1996 (the "Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, the parties are now desirous of amending Article 3 thereof solely
with respect to the commencement date.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is amended as follows:

     The first sentence of Article 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended so that
the same shall now read as follows:  "The Company shall retain Employee and
Employee shall accept employment by the Company for a term commencing October 1,
1996 and ending December 31, 2000 (the "Period of Employment")."

     Except as amended herein, the Agreement shall otherwise remain in full
force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their signatures on the
day and year first above written.

                                             EMPLOYER:
                                             MICRO WAREHOUSE, INC.

                                             By:
                                                 -----------------------------
                                               Peter Godfrey

                                             EMPLOYEE:

                                             ---------------------------------
                                             Linwood A. Lacy, Jr.
Exhibit 10.35

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this Amendment) is made and entered into as of this 15th day of August, 2007, by
and between eLoyalty Corporation (eLoyalty) and William Noon, a resident of the State of Illinois (the Employee).

RECITALS

A. eLoyalty and Employee are parties to that certain Employment
Agreement, dated as of April 4, 2005 (the Agreement), setting forth the terms and conditions of Employees employment with eLoyalty.

B. The parties desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein to reflect certain changes to Employees terms of employment that are being made as of the effective date hereto in connection with
Employees continuing service.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Recitals, the mutual covenants contained herein,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1. All capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.

2. The Agreement hereby is amended by appending the following language to Section 9 (Non-Solicitation):

Furthermore, while employed by eLoyalty and for a period of one (1) year following termination of this Agreement
or any renewal term (for any reason), Employee shall not, directly or indirectly, on behalf of Employee or any other person or entity, solicit any Client to become a client and/or customer of Employee or of any person or entity other than eLoyalty.
For purposes of this Agreement, a Client is a person, firm, company, corporation or other entity to whom Employee has sold any eLoyalty products or services and/or to whom Employee was first introduced by eLoyalty and is, becomes, or is
known to be, an actual or potential client or customer of eLoyalty.

3. The Agreement shall remain unmodified other than
as expressly set forth herein and, as so modified, shall remain in full force and effect.



---

4. This Amendment shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of Illinois.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employee and the duly authorized officer of eLoyalty have executed this Amendment as of the date set forth above.



|                    |  |                                                           
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|Employee            |  | eLoyalty                                                  
|                    | 
|/s/ William B. Noon |  | /s/ Steven Shapiro, VP, Gen. Counsel & Corporate Secretary
|                    | 
|8/15/07             |  | 8/15/07                                                   
|Date                |  | Date
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northwest Bancorporation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Holly A. Austin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (a) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By

/s/ Holly A. AustinHolly A. Austin, Chief Financial Officer


Date: May 12, 2009
Each of the following nonograms represents an aeronautics related picture made up of solid 

(colored-in) squares and blank squares. To reveal the pictures, use the numbers at the start of each 

column and row. The numbers represent the number of consecutive solid squares in that row or 

column. For example, if the numbers were “1 3 2,” that row or column would have a solid square 

followed by one or more blank squares, then three solid squares in a row followed by one or more 

blank squares, and then two solid squares in a row. The order of solid squares is correct, but you 

have to figure out how many blank spaces come before, after, and between the solid squares. When 

you have completed all the rows and columns, the picture is revealed.

Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

Aeronautics Nonograms



Answer Key
Answers
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 9, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES D. DECKER, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

ROGER WERHOLTZ, 

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-3031

(D.C. No. 5:09-CV-03252-SAC)

(D. of Kansas)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R.

42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-3031 Document: 01018437434 Date Filed: 06/09/2010 Page: 1
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANDY ’ S AUTO BODY AND PAINT, LLC a/a/o ANDREW ROSEBROUGH

, Appellant,

v.

TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellee.

No. 4D 21

- 1 77

[ April 22, 2021 ]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fif teenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Marni A. Bryson , Judge; L .T. Case Nos. 50

- 2019

- AP

000134

- CAXX

- MB and 50

- 2018

- SC

- 015635

- XXXX

- SB

.
David B. Pakula of David B. Pakula, P.A., Pembroke Pines, and Christopher Kasper of Ovadia Law Group, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

Steven H. Preston of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

W ARNER , D AMOORGIAN and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Harris & Harris Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31,
2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Douglas W. Jamison, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Patricia N. Egan, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his
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.











|/s/ Douglas W. Jamison           | 
|-------------------------------- | 
|Name: Douglas W. Jamison         | 
|Title:   Chief Executive Officer | 
|Date:   May 10, 2013             | 



|/s/ Patricia N. Egan             | 
|-------------------------------- | 
|Name: Patricia N. Egan           | 
|Title:   Chief Financial Officer | 
|Date:   May 10, 2013             |
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Brenda H. Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of MainStreet BankShares, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual
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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrants other certifying officers 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 registrant
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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

(b) N/A

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in the 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

(d ) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board
of directors:

(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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|              |  |                         
|------------- |  | ------------------------
|Date: 3/13/06 |  | /s/ Brenda H. Smith     
|              |  | Brenda H. Smith         
|              |  | Executive Vice President
|              |  | Chief Financial Officer 
|              |  | Corporate Secretary