alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 33-8405 and No. 33-43898) pertaining to the Incentive Stock
Option Plan of Westcorp and the Westcorp 1991 Stock Option Plan, respectively,
and in the related prospectus of our report dated January 16, 1996, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Westcorp included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1995.
 
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Los Angeles, California
March 26, 1996
 
                                      F-34
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2


                            CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
                     FILED TO CORRECT A CERTAIN ERROR IN THE
                         CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATIONS OF
                     8 SERIES A 5.5% CONVERTIBLE REDEEMABLE
                               PREFERRED STOCK OF
                              KEY3MEDIA GROUP, INC.
                           FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                         SECRETARY OF STATE OF DELAWARE
                              ON NOVEMBER 26, 2001



         KEY3MEDIA GROUP, INC., a corporation organized and existing under and
by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

         DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

         1. The name of the corporation is Key3Media Group, Inc.

         2. A Certificate of Designations of Series A 5.5% Convertible
Redeemable Preferred Stock (the "Certificate") was filed with the Secretary of
State of Delaware on November 26, 2001, and said Certificate requires correction
as permitted by subsection (f) of Section 103 of the General Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware.

         3. The inaccuracy or defect of said certificate to be corrected is as
follows: The phrase "annual rate of 5.5%" in the third line of Section 4(a) of
the Certificate should be deleted and the phrase "Applicable Annual Rate" (as
defined below)" should be inserted in lieu thereof. The percentage "1.375%"
contained in the sixteenth line of the same subsection should be deleted and the
phrase "one-fourth of the Applicable Annual Rate for such Quarterly Dividend
Period" should be inserted in lieu thereof. This subsection should be further
amended by inserting the following definition at the end of such subsection:

            The "Applicable Annual Rate" means, with respect to any Quarterly
            Dividend Period, (i) if such Quarterly Dividend Period ends prior to
            November 27, 2002, 5.39% per annum and (ii) if such Quarterly
            Dividend Period ends after November 27, 2002, 5.5% per annum.

         4. The dollar amount contained in the last line of the definition of
"Adjusted Liquidation Preference" in Section 7(j) should be changed from $26.40
to $26.375.



<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Key3Media Group, Inc. has caused this Certificate
to be signed by Ned S. Goldstein, its Secretary, this 14th day of December 2001.


                               KEY3MEDIA GROUP, INC.


                               By:
                                  -----------------------------------------
                                  Name:  Ned S. Goldstein
                                  Title: Executive Vice President, General
                                         Counsel and Secretary
keeping with a level commensurate with a financial institution in a similar environment.These benefits shall be provided and maintained at a level of not less than what is in effect atthe time this Agreement is executed.     Throughout the Term of Employment, Employee shall also be entitled to reimbursement forreasonable business expenses incurred by him in the performance of his duties hereunder.     During the Employee’s Term of Employment hereunder, Employee shall receive four (4) weeks paidvacation during each year of employment.”**IV.**     As herein amended, the Agreement continues in full force and effect.     **IN WITNESS WHEREOF,**the Bank and Employee have caused this Amendment to be executed effectiveas of the day and year first above written.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued January 21, 2016

Decided January 25, 2016

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 14-3342

RAVI KADIYALA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 13 C 4533

Joan H. Lefkow, Judge.

Order

After Ravi Kadiyala purchased 49% of the stock of Euro International Mortgage, Inc. 

(EIM), the firm opened a new account (Account 9378) at Bank of America. Kadiyala was 

an authorized signatory on that account. EIM provided him with credentials (username 

and password) that afforded him access to EIM’s other accounts at the Bank. He used 

those credentials to transfer $200,000 out of Account 3998, of which he was not a signatory, into Account 9378. He then instructed the Bank to issue cashier’s checks against 

the new balance in Account 9378. When he learned what Kadiyala had done, Mark 

Pupke, an authorized signatory on both accounts (and owner of the other 51% of EIM’s 

stock), told the Bank to cancel the transfer and restore the funds to Account 3998. The 
No. 14-3342 Page 2

Bank complied. Kadiyala contends in this suit under the diversity jurisdiction that, by 

reversing the transfers and cancelling the checks, the Bank violated his rights under the 

deposit contracts. The district court granted summary judgment to the Bank.

Kadiyala’s appellate argument encounters multiple obstacles, each of which requires

us to affirm the district court’s judgment.

First, Kadiyala was not an authorized signatory on Account 3998 and had no contractual entitlement (either as a party or a third-party beneficiary) to specify how the 

balance of that account would be applied.

Second, Pupke unquestionably did have authority over Account 3998 and told the 

Bank that the movement of the money was unauthorized. Kadiyala does not identify 

any rule of Illinois law (which governs this dispute) providing that, when a bank receives inconsistent instructions, it must always prefer the first in time.

Third, EIM, not either Kadiyala or Pupke, was the depositor. EIM was entitled to decide, through its own rules of corporate governance, who would speak for it. EIM has 

never contended that it authorized the transfer of funds from Account 3998 to Account 

9378, or that it wants $200,000 disbursed to the person Kadiyala specified.

Fourth, the person who acquires rights under a cashier’s check is the payee. Yet the 

payee has not protested the Bank’s reversal of the transfer or the stop-payment order on 

the checks. Kadiyala is not authorized to assert claims on behalf of the payee.

AFFIRMED
48 Occupational Outlook Quarterly • Winter 2012–13

Best bets for job perks

Access to benefits for civilian workers, by occupational group, March 2012

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Compensation Survey

What types of occupations provide the most access to 

employee benefits? Recent data from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS) show that workers in the management, professional, and related occupations were the 

most likely to have access to these benefits.

Employers usually offer employee benefits in addition to salaries as a way to attract and retain workers. 

Common types of benefits include retirement or pension 

plans, medical plans, life insurance coverage, paid sick 

leave, and paid vacation. Access, in this case, is defined 

as the employee being offered the benefit by his or her 

employer, regardless of whether the employee chooses to 

participate.

As the chart shows, paid vacation time, retirement 

plans, and medical plans were the most accessible benefits for all occupational groups. Life insurance benefits 

and paid sick leave were among the least accessible for 

most occupational groups. The chart also shows that, 

overall, workers in service occupations had the lowest 

access to employee benefits. (For another look at leave 

and benefits data, see the Grab Bag item “More education for better access to paid leave,” elsewhere in this 

issue of the Quarterly.)

These data come from the National Compensation 

Survey (NCS), which collects information on compensation costs and employee benefits for more than 120 

million workers. To see the full report, visit www.bls.

gov/news.release/pdf/ebs2.pdf. For more information, 

write to the BLS Office of Compensation and Working 

Conditions, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Suite 4175, 

Washington, D.C. 20212. Or, check out the National 

Compensation Survey website at www.bls.gov/ncs, call 

(202) 691-6199, or email ncsinfo@bls.gov.

Retirement benefits Medical benefits Life insurance Paid sick leave Paid vacation

Management, 

professional, and 

related

Service Sales and office Natural resources, 

construction, and 

maintenance

Production, transportation, and material 

moving

Percent of employees with access

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%
#### Louise Springer et al., Appellants, v 121 Varick Twelfth Floor, LLC, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 671]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered May 15, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this case involving an alleged computational error made at the closing for the sale of a cooperative unit, the motion court properly determined that there are issues of fact precluding an award of judgment as a matter of law *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]). Plaintiffs argue that defendant was not entitled to a credit it received at closing and that they gave defendant timely notice of the alleged error. Therefore, plaintiffs argue, defendant must return the money. However, the record presents a question of fact as to whether the parties agreed to the credit or whether it was, in fact the result of a computational error that survived the closing.

Despite the IAS court’s finding otherwise, the record presents no issue of fact regarding whether plaintiffs provided timely notice of the claim computational error. On the contrary, defendants did not dispute receiving the notice within six months as required under the co-op contract. Further, even though plaintiffs failed to include in the notice a $30,000 credit due to defendant, the notice of the claimed computational error was not defective in an way, and plaintiffs later amended their complaint to reflect the $30,000 credit. Concur — Andrias, J.P, Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15

- 1775 Filed September 14, 2016

NICHOLAS HANEGAN , Applicant

- Appellant,

vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Eliza J. Ovrom , Judge.

Nicholas Hanegan appeals an adverse summary judgment ruling on his application for postconviction relief

. AFFI RMED.

Joey T. Hoover of Hoover Law Firm, P.L.L.C. , Winterset , for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget A. Chambers , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.2

MULLINS, Judge. Nicholas Hanegan appeals an adverse summary judgment ruling on his application for postconviction relief, claiming he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. On our review , we conclude the judgment of the district court was correct and no error of law appears. We affirm without opinion. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.1203(a), (d). Furthermore, even if Hane gan’ s claim of newly discovered evidence had merit, the claim is barred by not having been raised within three years of its discovery. See Iowa Code § 822.3.
AFFIRMED

.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of Viscorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

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



2.

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Dated:  May 15, 2007



/s/ Charles Driscoll



Name: Charles Driscoll

Title:  Chief Executive Officer





Dated:  May 15, 2007



/s/ Charles Driscoll

Name: Charles Driscoll

Title:  Chief Financial Officer
FORM OE-1 (09-18) PRIOR EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE

 RAIL LABOR SYSTEM UNIT REPORT OF CREDITABLE SERVICE MONTHS AND COMPENSATION

1. Name of National Organization See Form OE-1 INST

 2. Page ___ of ___ Page(s) for Complete Instructions

3. Payroll Report of Reporting Unit 4. RRB Unit No. 5. For Month or Quarter Ending

 a. Name and/or Number b. Employer Identification Number (EIN)

 20____

NOTE: Compensation should NOT be reported in excess of applicable yearly maximums Tier I Maximum Tier II Maximum RUIA Max.

 6. Employee Identification

7. 

Month 

of 

Quarter

8. 

Daily 

Pay 

Rate

9. Gross 

Earnings and 

Tier I Medicare 

Earnings

10. 

Employee 

Medicare Tax 

Withheld

11. 

Tier I 

Earnings

12. 

Tier I Employee 

Tax Withheld

13. 

Tier II 

Earnings

14. 

Tier II Employee 

Tax Withheld

15. 

RUIA 

Compensation

 Name 1 

2 

 SSA Number 3 

 Name 1 

2 

 SSA Number 3 

 Name 1 

2 

 SSA Number 3 

 Name 1 

2 

 SSA Number 3 

 Name 1 

2 

 SSA Number 3 

 Name 1 

2 

 SSA Number 3 

16. TOTALS

 CAUTION: Railroad Retirement Taxes reported on the CT-1 must be deposited by electronic funds transfer with the U. S. Treasury Department. Read the instructions for the 

 Form CT-1 for the proper depositing procedures. The frequency of your tax is NOT determined by the completion of Form OE-1. Deposits may be required more or less often.

 17. Name and Title 18. Address 19. Telephone Number 20. Date Completed 21. Date 

Received 

by NRO
FORM OE-1 TAX CALCULATION WORKSHEET

FORM OE-1 (09-18) PRIOR EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE

TAX CALCULATIONS CT-1 REFERENCES

 To be used for completing Form CT-1 and in determining tax liability.

 A. _$__________ ______________ $ Tier I Employer Tax - 

 Column 11 Total x Tier I Employer Compensation

 Tax Rate

 B. __$_________ ________________ $ Tier I Employer 

 Column 9 Total x Medicare Tax Rate Medicare Tax -

Compensation

 C. _$__________ _______________ $ Tier II Employer Tax - 

 Column 13 Total x Tier II Employer Compensation

 Tax Rate

 D. Column 12 Total $ Tier I Employee Tax - 

Compensation

 E. Column 10 Total $ Tier I Employee 

Medicare Tax -

Compensation

 F. _$__________ x ________________

 Additional Medicare Tier I Employee 

 Tax Rate $ Additional Medicare

 [Paid on compensation exceeding $200,000 Tax - Compensation

 per year for an employee]

 G. Column 14 Total $ Tier II Employee Tax - 

Compensation

 H. Sum of columns A through G $ Total Tax Based

 Railroad Retirement Tax Liability for period on Compensation

 I. _$__________ ________________ $ DC-1 RUIA 

 Column 15 Total x RUIA Contribution Contribution Liability

 Rate for Period

 The amounts in Item A should equal Item D and the amounts in Item B should equal Item E. 

 The items may differ a few cents due to rounding of partial cents.

 PHOTO COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS
#### Juliette Carbonnier, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Stephanie Salzman, et al., Respondents, v Board of Education of the City of New York, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 676]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur E Engoron, J.), entered December 18, 2012, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this action for personal injuries allegedly suffered by the infant plaintiff when she fell, after being pushed by another student, while playing on the monkey bars in the school playground, defendant demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that there was adequate instruction and supervision with respect to the playground and its equipment. The evidence establishes that the infant plaintiff had used monkey bars at least 50 times before the accident and had used the monkey bars in the school playground twice before, there were a minimum of two adults in the playground for every class of 25 children at the time of the accident, both the teacher and the assistant teacher were walking around the playground assisting and monitoring student play, and it was “the impulsive, unanticipated act of a fellow student” that caused the accident *(see Mirand v City of New*York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]).

In opposition, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the level of supervision provided by defendants was inadequate, or that the alleged lack of supervision or training of the staff and the students was the proximate cause of the accident *(see Martinez v City of New York,*85 AD3d 586 [1st Dept 2011]; *Charles v City of Yonkers,*103 AD3d 765, 766 [2d Dept 2013] [monkey bars]; *Troiani v White Plains City School Dist.,*64 AD3d 701, 702 [2d Dept 2009] [monkey bars]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS 

OFFI@.Q\QO~Qi3ll~N~.®@L STu\ TION•"A!! SJIIN!!!if.E;~AS 7J~! ~'OSTAGE))PITNEY BOWES 0 . 

STATE OF TEXAS , ,~:~<>·~ . · ({~ m~ 7~1J ~~"? PENAL TV FOR ~;z:~g,~r'«:;"' ~ == 

PRIVATE USE """··,~:;.f!I~·-":~:., r . • ~~ ;~701 $ (0)(0)(0).~1 5 

, '\~'iiit : "• .,. . 0001401623 JUL. 02. 2015. 

7/1/2015 Nr:;;;; "" "k_., ·7 ·~:"~;, ~\.,.)!. ~~!\ /\fj"' :; :!<~~ 

ST_E~LE, RIC_KY EDWARD 1~t>·Gfrrt9:¥~:g5~~31;WA . WR-~5,6~0-02 This IS to advise that the Court '!;!as ·demed WithoiJt wntten order the application for 0--- ~;.~;;:::'"'''~·-'""c., 11/ ~ 

writ of habeas corpus on the findin·g~!Qf tl'ile.tfi?ltcourt without a hearing. 

""2.<~:Z:ZA·'' Abel Acosta, Clerk 

\L-\~~fj . ' . 

. . ·•af .
# Requests Report (2)

# image4.emf

# image5.emf

# image1.emf

# image2.emf

# image3.emf

# image6.png
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - May 2002 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Benefit payments May 2002 

Total 

Retired employees 

Spouses and divorced spouses 

Widow(er)s - aged and disabled 

Other survivors 

May 2001 

$741,494,000 $697,370,000 

469,744,000 438,453,000 

91,038,000 86,520,000 

22,240,000 21,086,000 

158,472,000 151,311,000 

Number Average1 Number Average1 

Total 647,100 ......... 2,700 ......... ......... 

Regular employee annuities, total 298,000 $1,510 1,200 $2,027 ......... 

Age 216,700 1,472 2 100 2 2,352 3 $1,118 

Disability, age 65 and over 37,100 1,355 ......... ......... ......... 

Disability, under age 65 44,200 1,826 500 2,121 

Spouses and divorced spouses 151,800 571 700 539 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 167,900 933 700 1,035 

Widowed mothers and fathers 1,100 1,207 4/ 974 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 15,200 627 100 755 

Children 13,100 731 100 871 

Other survivors 100 609 ......... ......... ......... 

Average under 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded in 

month 

Social Security 

Monthly benefits May 2002

Being Paid Awarded 

......... 

......... 

$878 

......... 

617 651 

817 882 

431 324 

......... 

5/ / 

575 598 

831 703 

5

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

Benefit payments 

May May 

2002 2001 Number Average 

$5,758,000 $5,678,000 129,300 $42 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Number Average 

200 $39 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement.

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 32); some 500

other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis.

4

Fewer than 50.

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers.

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

Regular retirement and survivor benefit payments total includes hospital insurance benefits for services in Canada.

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

May 2002 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Unemployment 4,300 $247.25 

Sickness 6,300 248.05 

Unemployment 

Sickness 

Average payment 

Per 

full week 

$428.54 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period 

435.07 

May 2002 

Benefit payments 

May 2001 

Total $3,779,000 $5,290,000 

2,776,000 1,805,000 

1,003,000 3,486,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Recycled 

Paper 

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary and the Office of Public Affairs
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 124TH DISTRICT COURT OF GREGG COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 3rd 

day of March, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was 

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Herron Kent Duckett, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-14-00060-CR

Trial Court No. 43,063-B

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Herron Kent Duckett, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 24th day of July, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk