alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.1




                         Consent of Independent Auditors



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-82224) pertaining to the National Medical Health Card Systems,
Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan of our report dated  September 5, 2003, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of National Medical Health
Card Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries included in its Annual Report (Form 10-KA/2)
for the year ended June 30, 2003.


                                                         /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


     Melville, New York
     February 17, 2004


<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT




To the Board of Directors
National Medical Health Card Systems, Inc.


     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  registration
statement of National  Medical  Health Card Systems,  Inc. on Form S-8 (file No.
333-82224)  of our report dated August 31, 2001, on the  consolidated  financial
statements of National Medical Health Card Systems,  Inc. and Subsidiaries as of
June 30, 2001 and for the year then ended appearing in the annual report on Form
10-KA/2 of National  Medical  Health Card Systems,  Inc. for the year ended June
30, 2003.




GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
New York, New York

February 17, 2004
EXHIBIT 21




                                 Subsidiaries
                                 ------------


    Company Name                     Jurisdiction of Incorporation
    ------------                     -----------------------------

ALG, Inc.                                      Delaware
Carpet Recycling of Georgia, Inc.              Georgia
CJC, Ltd.                                      Bermuda
CWB, Ltd.                                      Bermuda
DRS Holdings NV                                Netherlands Antilles
Fiber Industries, Inc.                         Delaware
Fibres Finance BV                              Netherlands
JCT, Ltd.                                      Bermuda
Josdav, Inc.                                   Delaware
KRP, Ltd.                                      Bermuda
Materials Recovery of California, Inc.         Massachusetts
Middlewich Limited                             Ireland
MRF, Inc.                                      Delaware
Pavebury, Ltd. d/b/a Wellman International
 Trading Ltd.                                  Ireland
Perma Clear East, Inc.                         Delaware
Prince, Inc.                                   Delaware
Resins Finance BV                              Netherlands
Shobara Limited                                Ireland
Warehouse Associates, Inc.                     South Carolina
Wellman BV                                     Netherlands
Wellman Exports VI, Inc.                       US Virgin Islands
Wellman Fibres Ltd.                            United Kingdom
Wellman Finance CV                             Netherlands
Wellman France Recyclage Sarl                  France
Wellman International Handelsgesellschaft Gmbh Germany
Wellman International Investments, Limited     Ireland
Wellman International Limited                  Ireland
Wellman of Mississippi, Inc.                   Delaware
Wellman PAC                                    New Jersey
Wellman PET Resins Europe BV                   Netherlands
Wellman Polymers, Ld.                          United Kingdom
Wellman Resins LLC                             Delaware
Wellman Scholarship Foundation, Inc.           South Carolina
Wellman UK Holdings Ltd.                       United Kingdom
Wellman Voluntary Employees Benefit
 Association                                   South Carolina
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 22, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-2370

Lower Tribunal No. 13-4131

________________

M.P., a juvenile,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Orlando A.

Prescott, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Brian L. Ellison, Assistant Public

Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, EMAS and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s determination, following an adjudicatory hearing,

that M.P. had committed the delinquent act of uttering a forged instrument. 

Regardless of whether the special standard of review is limited in its application to

cases in which the proof of every element is wholly circumstantial, or applies more

broadly to cases in which proof of any one element is wholly circumstantial1, we

conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence that was inconsistent with the

hypothesis of innocence claimed by M.P. The trial court therefore properly denied

the motion for judgment of dismissal and, as the factfinder, properly determined

that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that M.P. committed the

delinquent act.

The adjudicatory order and disposition order are affirmed.

1 We will not recount the history of the development, demise, and resurrection of

the special standard of review in circumstantial evidence cases. For a thorough

analysis of this standard and its sometimes-inconsistent application by Florida

appellate courts, see Knight v. State, 107 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), review

granted 151 So. 3d 1226 (Fla. 2014). 

2
I 

 

I 

I 

I 

NO. 28,989 

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

§ 

vs. § 196TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

§ 

CARL TON DANIE:L JONES § HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

Now comes CARL TON DANIEL JONES, Defendant in the above styled and num~red 

! 

cause, and gives this written notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals of the State of Texas from 

the judgment of conviction and sentence herein rendered against CARL TON DANIEL JONES. 

Respectfully submitted, 

By . .:::::,_......::::::::.:~=::::::::::::..___ _____ __;__ 

Russell P. Brooks 

State Bar No. 03074200 

Attorney for CARLTON DANIEL JONES 1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that on July 16,2015, a true and correct copy of the above and foregotng ! 

delivery. 

I 

( 

t 

FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 7/28/2015 10:48:59 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
STATE OF TEXAS 

\'S. 

CARL TON DANIEL JONES 

~~~'" L ./~/~ NO. 28,989 'q ~ 6' <'Q~ 1f1 

§ IN THE DISTRICT couaW~ I 

~ 196TII JUDICIAL DISTRICT '17-<i, f. 

§ I 

§ HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS 

TRIAL COURT'S CERTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT'S RIGHT OF APPEAL 

I, judge of the trial certify this criminal case is not a plea-bargain case and the 

D~gh 

~ 

---------------July 16, 2015 

Date Signed 

I have received a copy of the certification. I have also been informed of mv rights concerning 

my appeal in this criminal case. including any right to file a pro se petition for discretioparv 

review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure. I have been admoni@ed 

that mv attome must mail a co , of the Court of A eal's "ud ment and o inion to m 1

last 

knO\vn address and that I have onlv 30 da s in which to file a ro se Petition for Discretio arv 

Review in the Court of Appeals. I acknowledge that, if I wish to appeal this case and if I am 

entitled to do so, it is my duty to inform my appellate attorney, by written communicatio , of 

any change in the address at which I am currently living or any change in my current prison nit. 

I understand that, because of appellate deadlines, if I fail to timely inform my appellate atto , ey 

of any change in my address, I may lose the opportunity to file a pro se Petition for Discretio11 ary 

Review. 

CARL TON DANIEL JONES, Defendant 

ID Number: ------------------- Hunt County Sheriff's Department 

2801 Stuart Street 

State Bar Number: 03074200 

2515 Washington Street 

P.O. Box 1905 

Greenville, Texas 75401 Greenville, Texas 75403 

Telephone: (903) 455-3647 

I 

Fax: (903) 454-4428 ' 

"A defendant in a criminal case has the right of appeal to a court of appeals under these rules~ln a plea bargain case - that is, a case in which a defendant's plea was guilty or nolo contendere d 

the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed t , by 

the defendant - a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by wri(ten 

motions filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court's permission to appeal." 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2).
<PAGE>   1
                                                              EXHIBIT 10.2(C)(I)


                     AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

AGREEMENT, dated as of May 14, 1999, between George W. Connell (the "Executive")
and The John Nuveen Company, a Delaware corporation ("JNC").

WHEREAS, the Executive and JNC entered into an Employment Agreement as of July
14, 1997; (the "1997 Agreement") and

WHEREAS, the Executive and JNC now desire to enter into this amendment (the
"Amended Agreement") to the 1997 Agreement to effect certain changes in the
Executive's responsibilities and compensation from those set forth in the 1997
Agreement;

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the mutual promises
and agreements hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and
notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the 1997 Agreement, JNC and the
Executive agree as follows:

1.   Office and Responsibilities. The Executive shall no longer hold the title
     nor assume the responsibilities of Chief Investment Officer of Rittenhouse
     Financial Services ("RFS"), but shall become a part time employee of RFS
     whose duties and responsibilities are to act as an adviser to the RFS
     Investment Committee and to RFS's President, on an as requested basis.
     Executive shall not be required to perform any services for RFS outside of
     the greater Philadelphia area.

2.   Compensation of Executive. As full compensation for his services hereunder,
     RFS will pay the Executive an annual salary equal to one hundred thousand
     dollars ($100,000) for the remaining term of the 1997 Agreement.

3.   Benefits; Other Compensation. As a part time employee, the Executive shall
     be entitled to such health, life and disability insurance benefits and such
     profit sharing, pension, paid vacation, sick and personal time and other
     fringe benefits, if any, as are available to, and on similar terms and
     conditions as apply to, other part time employees of RFS. Executive shall
     continue to be eligible to participate in the Nuveen Scholarship Program.

4.   Effective Date. The compensation payable to Executive under the Amended
     Agreement shall be effective as of April 1, 1999.

5.   No Other Changes to the 1997 Agreement. Except as modified as set forth
     above, the provisions of the 1997 Agreement shall remain in full force and
     effect.



<PAGE>   2


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, being duly authorized, have duly
executed and delivered this Agreement.


                                         THE JOHN NUVEEN COMPANY


                                         By: __________________________
                                              Name:  John P. Amboian
                                              Title:    President

                                         Date: _________________________



                                         GEORGE W. CONNELL

                                         --------------------------

                                         Date: _________________________
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-11405 Conference Calendar

HENRY WARREN HOLIDAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TOM GREEN COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:01-CV-47-C

-------------------- June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Henry Warren Holiday, Texas prisoner # 567442, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Holiday’s complaint asserted that his civil rights were violated because jail officials confiscated his law books for a time and placed a county property stamp on them. He also conclusionally asserts for the first time on appeal that he was denied access to courtsNo. 01-11405 -2- and that the jail law library was inadequate, but this court will not consider claims that are raised for the first time on appeal.
See Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Discount Centers, Inc. , 200 F.3d 307, 316-17 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court did not err in dismissing Holiday’s deprivation-of-property claim as frivolous. See Hudson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Texas has an adequate postdeprivation remedy for confiscation of prisoner property. Cathey v. Guenther , 47 F.3d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 1995). Holiday’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal and the district court’s dismissal each count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Holiday therefore has two “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Holiday that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
I .RICKY COLEMAN.

Prison. ‘2 SBI#:717340B. is now confined to Northern State

2.RICKY COLEMAN. 2 SBI#: 717340B will be required at the United States Court House in NewarK. New Jersey before the Hon. Stanley R. Chester, U.S. District Judge, on Wednesdav July 6 2011, at 1000 a m , for a status conference, in the above-captioned case. A Writ of Habeas Corpus should be issued for that ourpose.

DATED: June 24,2011

Newark, NJ

Let ORDER the Writ Issue.

DATED:,/7 1/

WRITQ..E HABEAS CORPUS

WE

The

COMMAND

United States

YOU

of America to Warden of Northern State Prison that you have the body of

RICKY COLEMAN. 2 SBI#:717340B

now confined at the Northern State Prison, brought before the United States District Court. before the Hon Stanley R Chester, U S District Judge, on Wednesday July 8 2011 at 10:00 a.m., for a status conference.

WITNESS the Hon. Stanley R. Chesler United States District Judge Newark, New Jersey.

DATED:

,1Y7 /X (,‘ WILLIAM T. WALSH

Clerk of the U.S. District Court for theADlstrlct of New Jersey

Deputy Clerk
PACTS 4:60118

Name of Sentencing Judicial Officer: Honorable Stanley R. Chesler

Senior United States District Judge

Date of Original Sentence: July 18, 2011

Original Offense: Bank Fraud - Conspiracy to Defraud a Financial Institution,

Original Sentence: Probatio:. -36 months; Special Assessment - $100; Restitution - 8114.000,00

I2ofSJ,pemsion: Prob p__ teServision Commenced:Julvl8.20l1

STATUS REPORT

U.S. Probation Ofticr Acion:

On July 18, 201 1 ,the offender was sentenced by Your Honor to 36 months probation. The following

special conditions were :mposed: Location monitoring program - 12 months, mental health

treatment, no new debt/credit, and occupational restrictions. He was also ordered to pay a $100

special assessment and $114,000.00 in restitution.

Mr. Frobling currently resides in Jersey City, New Jersey. He has been self-employed with FrohlingAssociates since February of 2006. We believe that Mr. Frohling has paid the court-ordered

restitution to the best of his financial ability. To date, he has paid $3,100.00 toward his ob1igaton.

It should be noted that should his term ofsupervision expire as scheduled, his case will be referred

to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Financial Litigation Unit, for collection.Recommenthtion: It i respectfully regueted that Your Honor take no fUrther action and allow Mr.

Respectruliv submitted,

3Surervisinu U.S. Probabon Officer

Date: May20, 2014
SignaturefJudicial Officer

5fli

Date
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 12, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00326-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF DAVE WALKER, DECEASED

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Waller County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. P20-084

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from an order signed June 1, 2021. The notice of appeal 

was filed June 11, 2021. To date, our records show that appellant has not paid the 

appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cases 

unless party is excused by statute or by appellate rules from paying costs). Tex. 

Gov’t Code § 51.207 (appellate fees and costs).

On July 13, 2021, this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate filing fee 

on or before July 23, 2021, or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has not 

paid the appellate filing fee or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 
2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing 

involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply with notice 

from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
@article{1213296,
  author = {Michael Dunaway},
  title = {Evaluating the "whole community" concept based on the national response to COVID-19},
  year = {2023},
  number = {83},
  month = {2023-08-30 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Public Administration Review (PAR)},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=934132},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13711},
  language = {en},
}
Order entered March 22, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 00912
- CR
AUSTON BRYCE ARMSTRONG , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 86t h Judicial District Court

Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 20
- 00259
- 86
- F

O RDER Before the Court is appellant ’ s March 18, 2021 unopposed second motion for an extension of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appell ant ’ s brief d ue on April 19, 2021

.
/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT WILLIAMS JAMES TRUESDALE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2863 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed January 23, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Michael F. Andrews, Judge. William James Truesdale, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Moore v. State, 882 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 2004); State v. Whitehead, 472 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1985); Robinson v. State, 37 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Carpenter v. State, 884 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Burttram v. State, 846 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Lane v. State, 981 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Coke v. State, 955 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Williams v. State, 907 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

NORTHCUTT, SLEET, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 21, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 21, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15I0240. MYE BROOKE BRINDLE, et al. v. JOSEPH ROGERS, JR..

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

1218807
#### Cohen Tauber Spievak & Wagner, LLP, Respondent, v Jeffrey Alnwick et al., Appellants.

[825 NYS2d 439]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered September 22, 2005, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $210,036.28 while severing and dismissing defendants’ counterclaims for the period prior to September 15, 2003; and order, same court and Justice, entered April 18, 2006, which, to the extent appealable, denied defendants’ motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 6, 2005, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiff demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment on its claim for an account stated, and defendants failed to establish the existence of admissible evidence that would raise genuine issues of fact *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Defendants received plaintiffs invoices from 2000 through September 15, 2003 without objection, and made partial payments thereon *(see Shea & Gould v Burr,*194 AD2d 369 [1993]). Their “bald conclusory allegations of fraud, mistake and other equitable considerations are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment” on an account stated *(Liddle, O’Connor, Finkelstein & Robinson v Koppelman,*215 AD2d 204 [1995]). Furthermore, it is “not necessary to establish the *563reasonableness of the fee since the client’s act of holding the statement without objection will be construed as acquiescence as to its correctness” *(O’Connell & Aronowitz v Gullo,*229 AD2d 637, 638 [1996], *lv denied*89 NY2d 803 [1996]).

Renewal was properly denied because defendants failed to allege new facts or explain why the documents upon which their claims were based had not been included in the prior motion. We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Marlow, McGuire and Malone, JJ.