alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cornelia M. Klein v. Martin Klein.

*Dvooi'oe*— Custody *of chilcfo'en.*

When a divorce is decreed to the wife for the cruelty of the husband,, the wife is *prima fade*best entitled to the custody of very young children of the marriage.

This is also the rule of the statute, Public Acts 1879, p. 154; and therefore in such a case the wife should be given the custody of children three and five years of age, though it be plain that she as well as the husband is blameworthy for the separation.

Appeal from Superior Court of Detroit.

Submitted October 21, 1881.

Decided January 25, 1882.

Divorce. Complainant appeals.

Reversed.

*Otto Ki/rchner*for complainant.

*Alfred E. Eawes*for defendant.

*519Cooley, J.

In this case the wife has obtained a divorce from her husband on the ground of extreme cruelty. The husband acquiesces in this decree, but the wife has appealed from a clause therein which awards to the husband the custody and control of one of the children of the marriage. There are two of these children; a girl five years of age when the decree was pronounced, and a boy two years younger. The boy is awarded to the father.

The evidence in the case does not satisfy us that the fault in the separation is chargeable to one of the parties exclusively, or that the welfare of the children unmistakably requires that they be confided to one of the parties rather than the other. But they are now with the mother, who in the light of the decree must be regarded as being without legal fault, and there should be reasons preponderating in favor of the husband before any change should be made. Besides, the children are of very tender age,- and the statute favors the custody of the mother under such circumstances. Public Acts 1819, p. 151.

The statutory provision is as follows: *“*That in case of the separation of husband and wife having minor children, the mother of said children shall be entitled to the care and custody of all such children under the age of twelve years, and the father of such children shall be entitled to the care and custody of all such children of the age of twelve years or over: *Provided,*That any probate court or any court of competent jurisdiction may, on petition and hearing thereof, make and enforce such order or orders as it may deem just and proper as to the care and custody of such minor children, excepting in cases where an order or decree may have been made by any court in chancery regarding such children : *And provided fv/rther,*That nothing in this act shall prevent any court of competent jurisdiction from making and enforcing any such order or orders as it may deem just and proper as to the care and custody of such minor children in the same manner and with like effect as it could if this act had not been passed.” We are disposed, therefore, to reverse the decree so far as it awards the custody of *520the youngest child to the father, leaving the chancery court to deal with the case hereafter on any change of circumstances.

Graves, C. J. and Marston, J. concurred.

Campbell, J.

The husband not having appealed, I concur in the result.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
 ACTION: Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.
 SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in the 
                        **Federal Register**
                        ) may be relied upon as “of record” notice that the Corporation has been appointed receiver for purposes of the statement of policy published in the July 2, 1992 issue of the 
                        **Federal Register**
                         (57 FR 29491). For further information concerning the identification of any institutions which have been placed in liquidation, please visit the Corporation Web site at 
                        *www.fdic.gov/​bank/​individual/​failed/​banklist.html*
                         or contact the Manager of Receivership Oversight in the appropriate service center. Dated: December 23, 2014. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Pamela Johnson, Regulatory Editing Specialist.
 Institutions in Liquidation
[In alphabetical order]
FDIC Ref. No.
Bank name
City
State
Date closed10509
Northern Star Bank
Mankato
MN
12/19/2014


[FR Doc. 2014-30529 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
#### JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Appellant, v Low Cost Bearings NY Inc. et al., Defendants, and Harriet Stathakos, Respondent.

[969 NYS2d 19]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, *644J.), entered June 13, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to add three defendants and additional claims, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the cross motion granted.

Plaintiff seeks recovery for property damage sustained to its bank branch located at 2084-2090 Linden Boulevard, in Brooklyn, as a result of a June 10, 2008 fire, which originated in a portion of the premises leased to defendant Chatkhan. At the time of the fire, the premises were owned by defendant Harriet Stathakos, together with her father, Bill Stathakos, and her uncle, Nick Stathakos.

Plaintiffs cross motion sought to add the premises’ other owners, who were similarly situated to the defendant-owner, and the managing agent for the premises, as defendants, and to amplify the allegations of negligence to include, inter alia, a claim that the premises contained inadequate firestopping and that firewalls had been improperly removed. Plaintiff made the requisite evidentiary showing of the viability of its proposed amendments via the submission of, inter alia, deposition testimony of one of the parties, affidavits from the proposed additional parties, the lease, and evidence of fire safety violations. Accordingly, leave to amend should have been granted in the absence of evidence of substantial prejudice or surprise *(see*CPLR 3025 [b]; *Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York,*60 NY2d 957, 959 [1983]) or that the proposed amendments were “palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” *(MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co., Inc.,*74 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2010]).

The sufficiency of plaintiff’s proposed amendments was implicitly recognized by the court in denying the defendant-owner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In opposition, defendant Harriet Stathakos failed to “overcome a presumption of validity in [plaintiffs] favor” *(Peach Parking Corp. v 346 W. 40th St., LLC,*42 AD3d 82, 86 [1st Dept 2007]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification**

In connection with the annual report of CYIOS Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Timothy Carnahan, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), that based on my knowledge: 

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

- The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the end of the periods covered by the Annual Report. 

| Date: October 5, 2011 |     |                                                                                 |
|-----------------------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | By: | /s/                                                                             |
|                       |     | Timothy Carnahan                                                                |
|                       |     | President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer, & Director |
Image Quality for Healthcare Applications

Telemedicine is rapidly becoming an essential 

component of today’s chronic disease management 

programs and clinical care practice.

Overview

Whether remotely monitoring a diabetes patient’s blood glucose levels or interactive, 

real-time provider-provider consultation, high-quality information display is critical. 

Viewing angle, ambient condition of the room, accurate color rendering, 3-D registration, and quality of camera image capture, 

monitor size and sharpness – all can have a tremendous impact on diagnosis and clinical decision making.

Industry Need Addressed

Research activities focus on defining improved methods for acquiring and displaying images for telemedicine applications. 

For example, 3-D imaging creates a lot of nausea, fatigue, and other symptoms when viewed for long periods of time,

depending on the quality of the image and display. Standards that can help characterize these displays will be required to 

help minimize potential mistakes caused by unwanted effects.

• Optimum viewing distance.

• Horizontal/vertical disparity.

• Interocular difference in trapezoidal distortion.

• Rotational misalignment.

Impact

These measurement procedures will allow researchers and manufacturers to develop product specifications that can be 

related to human performance, and allow users to determine the best product and technology for their application. 

For additional information, please visit http://www.nist.gov/healthcare/emerging/imagequality.cfm

NIST Approach

NIST research is currently evaluating mobile displays (tablet PCs, smart phones, etc.), commercial-off-the-shelf cameras, 

televisions/monitors, and display calibrations systems for telemedicine use. Through the research program, NIST also will 

eventually help develop standards for hyper-dimensional displays (nD displays) – displays that can present images in 3-D 

and overlay multiple images acquired through different modalities. These types of displays have great promise for medical 

applications including telesurgery (for example, directing medical procedures from ship to shore). 

NIST will develop measurement techniques and procedures for characterizing displays for such parameters as:

Key Contact

Paul Boynton 

Physical Measurement Laboratory

paul.boynton@nist.gov

Version 1.0 - February 2011
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report
dated March 20, 2007, with respect to the financial statements of CG-OMNOVA Decorative Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., included in this Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of OMNOVA Solutions Inc. for the year ended November 30, 2006.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-112530 on Form S-3,
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-100558 on Form S-8,
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-88143 on Form S-8,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-88145 on Form S-8,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-34938 on Form S-8,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-88587 on Form S-3,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-88143 on Form S-8,
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-34938 on Form S-8.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our report dated March 20, 2007, with respect to the financial statements of CG-OMNOVA Decorative Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., and our report included in this
Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of OMNOVA Solutions Inc.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Ernst & Young Hua Ming                     
|                                               
|Shanghai Branch, The Peoples Republic of China
|                                               
|March 20, 2007
Exhibit 10.11    December 29, 2008  Donald
R. Dancer  Dear
Don:  Reference
is made to the letter dated March 6, 2008 from International Rectifier
Corporation (the Company) to you regarding your compensation agreement
and severance agreement (the Compensation Agreement Letter).  The
purpose of this letter is to supplement the terms of the Compensation Agreement
Letter to include terms and conditions designed to make any payments pursuant
to the Offer Letter compliant with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (including the Treasury Regulations and other
published guidance related thereto) (Section 409A).  Your
Compensation Agreement Letter is hereby modified as follows:  1.             Special Severance Payment.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in
your Compensation Agreement Letter, you will only be entitled to receive the
benefits described in paragraph 4 thereof if you execute and deliver (and do
not revoke) a release agreement in the form set forth in paragraph 2(p) of
your Severance Agreement (as such term is defined in your Compensation
Agreement Letter) promptly but not later than fifty (50) days following your
termination.  Except to the extent the
specified employee provisions in Section 5 apply, any special severance
payment shall be made on the sixtieth (60th)
day following your separation from service.  2.             Gross-Up Payments.  Any gross-up payment due to you shall be made
by the end of the taxable year following the taxable year in which you remitted
the taxes to which the gross-up relates.  Except
as modified hereby, your Compensation Agreement Letter remains unmodified.  Please indicate your agreement with the
foregoing by signing where indicated below.  Regards,  INTERNATIONAL
  RECTIFIER CORPORATIONBy:Its:
   Assistant SecretaryAcknowledged
  and agreed:Donald
  R. DancerDate:
**Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(File Nos. 333-93623, 333-115416, 333-115417 and 333-115418) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-65730) ofSunCom Wireless Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries of our reportdated March 9, 2007 relating tothe financial statements, financial statement schedules, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania
Exhibit 4.1


 


CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION OF THE


CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO THE


CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION OF


SERIES A CONVERTIBLE PARTICIPATING PREFERRED STOCK


OF


HC2 HOLDINGS, INC.


 


It is hereby certified that:


 


1.            The name of the corporation is HC2 Holdings, Inc. (the “Corporation”).


 


2.            The Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Designation of Series A Convertible Participating Preferred Stock of the Corporation, which was filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware on January 5, 2015 (the “Certificate of Amendment”), is hereby corrected.


 


3.            The inaccuracy to be corrected in the Certificate of Amendment is that the Certificate of Amendment was filed in error without the proper authorization of the stockholders of the Corporation.


 


4.            The Certificate of Amendment is hereby rendered null and void.


 


[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]


 











	
Dated:

	
August 5

	
, 2015










	 	
HC2 HOLDINGS, INC.


	 	 	 
	 	
By:

	
/s/ Keith Hladek


	 		
Name: Keith Hladek


	 		
Title:   Chief Operating Officer







[Signature Page to Series A Certificate of Correction]
#### Russell HILL, Appellant v. The FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER, Appellee.

No. 05-5412.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 6, 2006.

Russell Hill, Warden, Woodville, MS, pro se.

BEFORE: HENDERSON, GARLAND, and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s September 30, 2005, order denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. As the district court’s judgment of dismissal was entered on August 8, 2005, appellant’s motion for reconsideration was timely filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) on August 18, 2005. Thus, the district court erred in treating the motion, including appellant’s request to *3amend the complaint, as brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Accordingly, the case is remanded so that the district court may consider the motion pursuant to the standards of Rule 59(e).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

)

vs. ) CRIMINAL NO. 08-00327-CG

)

 A. SAMUEL KELLEY, II, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the second motion to sever filed by defendant A.

Samuel Kelley (Doc. 415). The only argument this defendant now makes, in addition to the

grounds previously alleged in a motion which was denied, is that the government has filed a

notice of 404(b) evidence against some of the co-defendants, which 404(b) evidence in no way

involves defendant A. Samuel Kelley. Kelley argues that the potential for prejudicial confusion

is unavoidable, and that the only remedy is to either exclude the 404(b) evidence, or grant Kelley

a severance.

 “Severance is justified as a remedy only if the prejudice flowing from a joint trial is

clearly beyond the curative powers of [cautionary or limiting] instructions.” Baker, 432 F.3d at

1237; see also United States v. Morrow, 537 F.2d 120, 136 (5th Cir. 1976). Also, “a defendant

does not suffer ‘compelling prejudice simply because much of the evidence at trial is applicable

only to his codefendants’ even when the disparity is ‘enormous.’” Baker, 432 F.3d at 1236

(quoting Schlei, 122 F.3d at 984) (affirming district court’s denial of severance motion filed by

defendants in cocaine distribution case in which codefendants were also tried for various

murders and other gang violence); see also United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 857 (11th

Cir. 1985) (finding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance motion of

Case 1:08-cr-00327-CG-B Document 422 Filed 12/28/09 Page 1 of 2
1

 See defendant’s motion (Doc. 415) at pp. 2-3.

2

two defendants charged with cocaine distribution who were tried with codefendants who were

also charged with the murder of a federal agent). Although Kelley’s motion makes the assertion

that “a jury charge would be insufficient to prevent a jury from considering this 404(b) evidence

. . . in an impermissible fashion, and to prevent undue prejudice under a Rule 403 analysis,”1

 it

does not explain why a jury instruction would be ineffective. The court finds that a limiting

instruction would be appropriate concerning the 404(b) evidence, and there is no reason to infer

that the jury will not be able to follow that instruction. 

Accordingly, the second motion to sever is DENIED. 

DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of December, 2009.

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cr-00327-CG-B Document 422 Filed 12/28/09 Page 2 of 2
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF .TEXAS 

State !?onrd of fkairdrox’xms 

hq5iIl) TQxlfl 

and Coo~otologiats 
. 

State Eoerd of I:airdrcssars end Costzetolo&its, Fage 2 

it is required that cuoh non-rmidmt shall have &erved 

the hc~s required as n student. Elsowhore, in the !&atutg; it is provided that n student shall warn? 3000 

hours. ?rcsumbly, the sbhool of. the other state, menticned in ycur lettoy, is a licensed sobool v:ithln the 

purviov: 0.f the stwtute, 

YOU ers thcrofol*e respectfully advised that it 

is the opinion of this depurtmnt thiit the fipplicant desorlbed by you in your letter should be remitted to COP 

plete the required 1000 hour course us proscribed by our 

law, and therouftcr be pmitted to take the state board's 

exaainution, and tbzat he WOULD not be requijyed to enroll 

for a full six ronths' cowso of 1000 hours to be clir,fblo 

thorofor. 

WQ t33lat this RiltsWtr3 YOU2 inptiry Gtitiofactory 

ma we rmain
#### Frank Ferguson et al., Appellants, v Hanson Aggregates New York, Inc., Respondent.

[964 NYS2d 56]

Motion for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.

Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey, Carni and Martoche, JJ.
11952.

#### Rowe *v.*The State.

Decided January 25, 1921.

Indictment for robbery; from Fulton superior court — Judge Humphries. October 23, 1920.

*Ernest G. Bentley, Branch & Howard, P. D. Gambrell,*for plaintiff in error.

*John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, E. A. Stephens,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

The amendment to the motion for a new trial is but an amplification of the general grounds. There is ample evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge; and the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
<PAGE> 1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


AGGREGATE PAYMENT SCHEDULE

Household Finance Corporation
Household Auto Receivables Corporation 1999-1
Household Automobile Revolving Trust I
<S>                                 <C>

Original Principal Class A
   Class A-1                        147,000,000
   Class A-2                        180,220,000
   Class A-3                        156,010,000
   Class A-4                        179,050,000
Number of Class A Bonds (000's)
   Class A-1                            147,000
   Class A-2                            180,220
   Class A-3                            156,010
   Class A-4                            179,050


Distribution Date                                    1999

CLASS A
Class A-1 Principal Distribution                119,474,320.05
Class A-1 Interest Distribution                   2,329,587.20
Class A-2 Principal Distribution                          0.00
Class A-2 Interest Distribution                   5,267,910.70
Class A-3 Principal Distribution                          0.00
Class A-3 Interest Distribution                   4,965,148.26
Class A-4 Principal Distribution                          0.00
Class A-4 Interest Distribution                   5,986,487.01

</TABLE>