alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William L. Mathews v. David V. Yerex.

*Action c/rim. con.*— Wife *not allowed to testify.*

Under Michigan statutes a wife is not a competent witness for her husband in a suit brought by him for criminal conversation. Comp. L. § 5969.

Error to Lapeer.

Submitted Apr. 12.

Decided June *7.*

Case. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*Moore & Bentley*for appellant.

At the common law the wife was a competent witness for the husband after the marital relation had ceased: *Ratcliff v. Wales*1 Hill 63; *Dickerman v. Graves*6 Cush. 308; or where.the wife was examined by consent: *Parsons v. People*21 Mich. 513; and inability to testify on account of the marital relation is removed by Comp. L. § 5966: *People v. Thomas*9 Mich. 314; *Morrissey v. People*11 Mich. 341; *Grimm v. People*14 Mich. 306.

*Geer de Williams*for appellee.

Graves, C. J.

The only question presented by this case is whether the wife during the continuance of the state of marriage is a competent witness for her husband in a suit for criminal conversation. By the common law she was incompetent, and she still remains so unless the rule has been abrogated by the Legislature, and we think this has not been done.

*362The enactments to remove disabilities and liberate the law of evidence from many of its ancient fetters must be considered together. They compose a common scheme intended to prescribe in more or less general terms the doing away of common-law rules of incompetency, and at the same time are intended to declare certain limitations and- excéptions which should not be passed or disregarded. It may be admitted that the broad terms used in that part of the scheme which is employed in taking away disabilities, would, if viewed entirely by themselves, so operate as to render the wife competent in an action of this kind. But such an application of the statute would be a plain misuse of it. Recourse must be had to those parts intended to restrain and cut short the generality of the others and make exceptions thereto. Of that kind is the last clause of Oomp. L. § 6969, which provides that in “ any action or proceeding instituted by the husband or wife, in consequence of adultery, the husband and wife shall not be competent to testify.” This appears to the Court as a clear expression by the Legislature that the clauses removing incompetency should not extend to such a case as this.

The ruling below was correct, and the judgment is .affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
CHARLES MOULTRIE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2886

Opinion filed July 22, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Charles Moultrie, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
MEP Advisory Board Meeting 

Wednesday, June 8, 2022

AGENDA

Hyatt Regency Tulsa Downtown

100 East Second Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103

Wednesday, June 8, 2022

Tulsa South Ballroom

9-9:40 a.m. Central 

time

40 minutes

Welcome and Introductions

Opening remarks and welcome

Board and audience roll call

Pravina Raghavan, MEP Director

Matt Newman, Chair, MEP Advisory Board 

David Rowland, Executive Director, 

Oklahoma Manufacturing Alliance (OK 

MEP)

Laurie E. Locascio, Director of NIST and the 

Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Standards and Technology

Mojdeh Bahar, NIST, Associate Director, 

Innovation and Industry Services

9:40-10:20 a.m.

40 minutes

Director’s Update

Board feedback and discussion

Pravina Raghavan

10:20-10:50 a.m.

30 minutes

Presentation: Silver Tsunami and 

Succession Planning

Board feedback and discussion

Daniel Goldstein, CEO and President

Folience

10:50-11:15 a.m.

25 minutes

Public Comments/Open Meeting 

Wrap Up

Pravina Raghavan

Matt Newman

11:15-11:30 a.m.

15 minutes

Meeting Break

11:30 a.m. -1 p.m.

90 minutes

Closed Session

Rev. 6/2/2022

Agenda Subject to Change

Meeting free and open to the public. Registration required.

To attend the MEP Advisory Board meeting, submit your name, company/organization, 

email address and phone number to Cheryl Gendron (Cheryl.Gendron@nist.gov) by

Monday, June 6, 2022, 5 p.m. Eastern time.
Speaker List/Agenda for June 15, 2023 IEG General, Annual Meeting

Updated 08/05/2023

James R. Matey, james.matey@nist.gov

First Name Last Name Affiliation Title/Topic Order

Start

Time Length (min)

Blue Jeans Active to Test Login 1 08:30 20

Meeting Services

Technician NIST Review of Blue Jeans for Participants 2 08:50 10

Introductions 3 09:00 0

James Matey NIST Housekeeping 4 09:00 5

Craig Watson NIST Welcome To NIST 5 09:05 5

Updates/Progress Reports 6 09:10 0

James Matey NIST IEG: Status Update/Progress Report 7 09:10 10

Bethany Retton FBI OSAC: Iris Task Group: Status Update 8 09:20 10

Stephanie Schuckers Clarkson

Exploring Biometrics with Mia and Sophia--An Educational Video Series-

-Update 9 09:30 15

Break 10 09:45 10

Technical Discussion - PAD 11 09:55 0

Dan Wernig APL Odin: Final results 12 09:55 30

Terry Watters Retired Effect of Presbyopia Drugs on Iris Recognition 13 10:25 30

Jay Doyle Mitre BIQT Contact Lens Detector 14 10:55 15

Arun Ross MSU iWarpGAN: Disentangling Identity and Style to Generate Iris DeepFakes 15 11:10 30

Angela Elliot NGI

NGI Iris Service risk mitigation effort through a presentation attack

detection tool and future initiatives 16 11:40 30

Break - Lunch 17 12:10 30

Technical Discussions - Demographic Differentials 18 12:40 0

John Daugman Cambridge

Ethnicity and Biometric Entropy: Iris Individuality in a West African

database 19 12:40 30

Patrick Grother NIST IREX-10: Demographic Differentials & ?? 20 13:10 30

Adam Czajka Notre Dame

Investigation of gender bias in iris recognition and presentation attack

detection 21 13:40 30

Break 22 14:10 10

Algorithms, Datasets and Standards 23 14:20 0

Adam Czajka Notre Dame IREX-10: Open Source Algorithms 24 14:20 30

Priyanka Das HID Global

An Update on Longitudinal Performance of Iris Recognition in Children:

Time Intervals up to Six years 25 14:50 30

David

Arnold

Ackerman

Estrada

Princeton Identity

Eyelock

Study of Spatial Resolution Requirements for Iris Acquisition 26 15:20 30

Closing 27 15:50 0

James Matey NIST Closing Remarks 28 15:50 5

Open Discussion/Coffee Hour 29 15:55 30

Meeting Ends 30 16:25 0
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4317

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 2, 2004

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic located in Lufkin, Texas, as the ‘‘Charles Wilson Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 4317 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic 

3 located in Lufkin, Texas, shall after the date of the enact4 ment of this Act be known and designated as the ‘‘Charles 

5 Wilson Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clin6 ic’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference to such outpatient clinic in any law, 

9 regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the 

10 United States to the clinic referred to in section 1 shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Charles Wilson De12 partment of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’.

Passed the House of Representatives June 1, 2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

FRED J. DE LA COTERA, D.D.S., 

individually and as the representative of a 

class of similarly-situated persons,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAREFIRST PHARMACY, INC., an 

Illinois corporation, and HEALTH MART

SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04764

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff, FRED J. DE LA COTERA, 

D.D.S., through his undersigned attorneys, hereby dismisses this action with prejudice, class 

allegations without prejudice, each side to bear its own costs. 

 Respectfully submitted,

FRED J. DE LA COTERA, D.D.S.

By: /s/ Ryan M. Kelly__

 Ryan M. Kelly 

ANDERSON + WANCA

3701 Algonquin Rd., Ste. 500

Rolling Meadows. IL 60008

Telephone: 847-368-1500

Fax: 847-368-1501 

rkelly@andersonwanca.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04764 Document #: 16 Filed: 09/23/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:58
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 23, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing Joint 

Stipulation of Dismissal with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 

notification of such filings to all counsel of record.

/s/Ryan M. Kelly

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04764 Document #: 16 Filed: 09/23/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:59
Employment Letter dated September 30, 2005 - Bruce E. Walenczyk



 Exhibit 10.13 
  

			
	 


 Jim Courter
 CEO & Vice Chairman
	 	 IDT Corporation
 520 Broad Street
 Newark, NJ 07102 USA
 P 973 438/4300
 - 973 438/1503
 jcourter@corp.idt.net


  
 September 30, 2005 
  
 Mr. Bruce E. Walenczyk 
 206 Bearwoods Road 
 Park Ridge, NJ 07656 
  
 Dear Bruce: 
  
 I am pleased to offer you the position of Chief Financial Officer at IDT Spectrum, to be located at our Newark, New Jersey offices. In this position, you will be
reporting to John Petrillo and it is my understanding that you will be starting your employment with IDT on or before October 17, 2005. 
  
 Your Base Salary will be at the rate of $180,000 per year. In addition, you will be eligible for an annual performance based bonus of $100,000. In addition, after your
acceptance and return of this letter, you will be granted shares of restricted Class B Common Stock of IDT Spectrum equal to .5% of the currently issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of IDT Spectrum (after adjustment for a forthcoming
recapitalization). The vesting restrictions on one-third of your IDT Spectrum shares will lapse upon a qualified initial public offering of the capital stock of IDT Spectrum (that meets certain minimum criteria to be mutually agreed upon) if you
remain employed by IDT Spectrum at that time. The vesting restrictions on the remaining two-thirds of your IDT Spectrum shares will lapse in two equal installments on the one-year and two-year anniversaries of such a qualified initial public
offering of the capital stock of IDT Spectrum if you remain employed by IDT Spectrum at those times. 
  
 In addition to your Base Salary, you will be eligible to participate in the Company benefit programs as set forth in the attached schedule. 
  
 Prior to the commencement of your employment, you will be required to complete several administrative forms, including IDT’s
Non-Disclosure/Non-Competition Agreement (attached for your review) and an I-9 form, so it is necessary that you bring with you valid proof of your authorization to work in the United States (e.g., Drivers License and Social Security card or
Birth Certificate or Passport). Failure to complete the aforementioned forms will delay the commencement of your employment. IDT also conducts investigations, including verification by a third party, of prior employment history, education and record
of conviction. Please be aware that false statements or failure to disclose information can disqualify you for employment or, if employed, result in your dismissal. 
  
 Please acknowledge your acceptance of our offer by signing below and returning to me within five days of the date of this letter. Please
report directly to the Human Resources Department located on the 9th Floor on your first day.  







 2 
  
 We are very excited about you joining us at IDT. 
  

Sincerely, 
  
 /s/    C.R. Fredda 
  
 Charles R. Fredda 
 Director – Human Resources 
  
  
  

							
	 Acknowledged and agreed to:    
	 	 /s/    Bruce E. Walenczyk                
	    	Date:    	  	9/30/05
Prepared and filed by St Ives Financial



Exhibit 10.15

January 12, 2005

Michael McLain

325 Willow Springs Road

Indianapolis, IN 46240

RE: FY 2005 Aearo Company Management Incentive Program

Dear Mike:

As a key member of the Aearo management team, you have been selected to participate in the Company’s Management Incentive Program.  This letter provides specific information about your participation in the plan.  It details the potential payout you can earn based upon Aearo’s financial performance and the successful achievement of your individual goals.

Your payout opportunity is expressed as a percentage of your base annual salary as stated below.  The payout is comprised of two components. Seventy-five percent of the payout is based upon Aearo’s global operating cash flow as measured by Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization (EBITDA).  The remaining twenty-five percent is based upon the achievement of your individual goals.

The EBITDA threshold, target, and maximum values are set at the beginning of the fiscal year.  If Aearo achieves the FY 2005 EBITDA maximum value of $70.2 MM, you will earn 200% of your base plan EBITDA component payout.   If EBITDA for the year is at the threshold value, you will only earn 50% of your base plan EBITDA component payout.  The EBITDA component payout will be prorated to reflect actual Aearo EBITDA performance between the threshold and maximum values.  If EBITDA falls below the threshold value, no EBITDA component payout will be made.

How much of the goals-based component is paid will be determined by your performance against your goals as assessed by your manager and affirmed through the process of two-level review.  Further, if EBITDA performance is below threshold, any funding for the goals-based component of the plan would be at the discretion of the Board of Directors.  

A summary of your FY 2005 payout potential follows:

Factors:

	  Current Base Annual Salary:	 $573,060  
	  Participation Level:	50%  
	  Base Plan payout:	 $286,530  







Page Two

	 	FY 2005 Threshold

  $62.2 MM EBITDA	FY 2005

   Base Plan
$66.2 MM EBITDA	FY 2005 Financial Plan

  $70.2 MM EBITDA
	  EBITDA Component (75%)	$107,449  	$214,898  	$429,795  
	  Goals Component (25%)	$71,633  	$71,633  	$71,633  
	  Total Potential Payout	$179,082  	$286,531  	$501,428  


Base annual salary at the close of the fiscal year (9/30/05) will be used in calculating payouts.  Participants who voluntarily terminate their employment or who are involuntarily terminated for performance-related reasons prior to the close of the fiscal year forfeit any payout under the program.  Employees who are involuntarily terminated prior to the close of the fiscal year as the result of reductions-in-force, redundancy, or job elimination would receive a prorata portion of any payout made based on months worked during fiscal 2005.

Fiscal Year 2004 was an outstanding year for our company!  Let’s all stay focused on achieving our financial plan objectives to make Fiscal Year 2005 an even better one!

Sincerely,



Michael A. McLain
They were

seven...

THEIR PRECISION a
AFFECTS

MORE THAN “igs

7 MILLION! A \
\\|

THE
MAGNIFICENT SEVEN
BASE UNITS” + NIST
**EXHIBIT
31.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I, David
H. Eaton, certify that:
 
 1. 
 I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Stratford American
Corporation and its subsidiaries;
 
 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;
 
 3.  
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this 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 report;
 
 4.  
The small business issuer’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 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 report is being
prepared;
 
 b)  
evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this 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 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 (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 officers 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: May
      16, 2005
    By:
    /s/ 
      David H. EatonDavid
      H. Eaton
      Chief
      Executive Officerand
      Chairman
      of the Board
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of 
INSpire Insurance Solutions, Inc. (formerly Millers Integrated Claims Resources,
Inc. and MilliRisk, Inc.) on Form S-8 of our report dated January 19, 1998,
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of INSpire Insurance Solutions,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Fort Worth, Texas
May 21, 1998
#### John W. Hazelrigg *v.*Jas. G. Trimple.

Bills and Notes — Assignment—Notice of Lien.

Taking the last note with notice of the agreement between Trimble and Stamper, Hazelrigg has no right to complain that Trimble’s lien was adjudged superior to his.

APPEAL FROM MORGAN CIRCUIT COURT.

October 12, 1871.

*Hazelrigg, Simpson, for appellant.*

*Cooper, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The testimony leaves no doubt but that it was agreed between Stamper and Trimble, at the time the purchase money note of Toliver was assigned to the latter in satisfaction of his mortgage debt, that said note was to hold and have a preference, lien over the remaining part of the unpaid purchase price of the land sold to Toliver, and that this agreement formed part of the consideration, moving Trimble to release his mortgage liens.

This contract, although not reduced to writing, was binding upon Stamper.

We are very well satisfied that Hazelrigg had full notice of the agreement when he purchased the last note due to Stamper from Tolliver.

The depositions of H. H. Stamper and of Tutt prove this notice beyond doubt, and though they afterwards testify thai they were mistaken as to the fact when their first depositions were given, they assign no reason for such mistake. Possibly if they were unsupported, their testimony should be disregarded as unworthy of credit, but all the circumstances in the case, including Hazelrigg’s equivocal and unsatisfactory pleadings, and more especially the written contract between Stamper and himself, conduce to show that the testimony of H. H. Stamper and of Tutt when originally given was true.

Taking as he did the last note with notice of the agreement between Trimble and Stamper, Hazelrigg has no right to complain that Trimble’s lien was adudged superior to his.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 10.5(a)




FIRST RELIANCE BANCSHARES, INC.




FIRST AMENDMENT TO
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




          This First Amendment to the Employment Agreement by and between FIRST RELIANCE BANK (hereinafter referred to as “Employer” or “Company”) and JEFFREY A. PAOLUCCI (hereinafter referred to as “Employee”) is entered into on this 30th day of September, 2005.




W I T N E S S E T H




          WHEREAS, the parties entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated September 30, 2002.




          WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the term of the Employee’s employment under the Employment Agreement beyond the original expiration date of September 30, 2005.




          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree, effective as of September 30, 2005, that, pursuant to Section 15 of the Employment Agreement, to modify Section 3 of the Employment Agreement, as follows:


	

  

 
  	

  

“3.          Term.     The   term of the Employee’s hereunder shall continue until September 30, 2008,   unless such term is terminated earlier by and/or modified pursuant to   Paragraph 8 herein. The parties may, but are not required to, further extend   the Agreement in writing.”
  





          Except as provided herein, the terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.




          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be executed as of the first above written.


	

  

 
  	

  

FIRST   RELIANCE BANK
  
	

  

 
  	

  

 
  
	

  

 
  	

  

 
  
	

  

Date:  September 30, 2005
  	

  

By:
  	

  
/s/ F.R.   SAUNDERS, JR.


  
	

  

 
  	

  

 
  	

  




  
	

  

 
  	

  

 
  	

  

F.R.   SAUNDERS, JR.
  
	

  

 
  	

  

Title:  
	

  

President & Chief Executive Officer





  
	

   
  	

   
  	

   
  
	

   
  	

   
  	

   
  
	

   
  	

   
  	

  /s/ JEFFERY   A. PAOLUCCI
  
	

   
  	

   
  	

  




  
	

   
  	

   
  	

  JEFFREY A.   PAOLUCCI