alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Mary Ellis, Petitioner, v Kevin P. Mahon et al., Respondents.

[855 NYS2d 178]

*539Although the petition raised a substantial evidence question, the petitioner does not dispute on appeal that there was substantial evidence to support the specifications sustained against her. Instead, she contends that the determination was arbitrary and capricious as the disciplinary charges against her were allegedly the product of selective enforcement. However, the fact that other eligibility examiners in the petitioner’s work unit were not disciplined for failing to complete applications on time does not constitute a prior administrative policy to which the Westchester County Department of Social Services (hereinafter DSS) is bound *(cf. Matter of Lantry v State of New York,*6 NY3d 49, 58 [2005]; *Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts],*66 NY2d 516, 516-517 [1985]; *Matter of Girard v City of Glens Falls,*173 AD2d 113, 117 [1991]).

The petitioner contends that the hearing officer was biased by a financial incentive because he was an ad hoc officer appointed by the County. However, there was no evidence in the record that the hearing officer was biased *(see Matter of Compasso v Sheriff of Sullivan County,*29 AD3d 1064, 1064-1065 [2006]; *Matter of Schindlar v Incorporated Vil. of Lloyd Harbor,*261 AD2d 626 [1999]).

Nevertheless, even though the charges were properly sustained, the petitioner should not have been terminated from her employment. The evidence did not establish, nor does the re*540spondent suggest, that the petitioner’s conduct was motivated by any malice or selfishness, or that it resulted in any “grave injury to the agency involved or to the public weal” *(Matter of Kelly v Safir,*96 NY2d 32, 39 [2001]; *see Matter of Goudy v*Schaffer; 24 AD3d 764 [2005]; *Matter of Muraik v Landi,*19 AD3d 697 [2005]). Furthermore, in view of the petitioner’s 18 years of service for DSS, the absence of any other disciplinary proceedings against her, as well as other mitigating circumstances, the penalty of termination or even suspension of employment, given the financial implications, is so disproportionate to the offense committed as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 233-235 [1974]; *Matter of Goudy v Schaffer,*24 AD3d 764, 765 [2005]). Accordingly, we grant the petition to the extent indicated, and remit the matter to the respondents for the imposition of a penalty less severe than either termination or suspension of the petitioner’s employment. Skelos, J.P., Lifson, Santucci and Covello, JJ., concur.
Case 3:11-cv-00468-PGS-LHG Document 36 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 721
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6120
ANTOINE L. THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia D.O.C., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vi rginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:07-cv-00219-RAJ-FBS) Submitted: March 25, 2008 Decided: March 31, 2008 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antoine L. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Antoine L. Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Opinion filed June 11, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-15-00113-CR

___________

KIRSTEN T. LEWIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 118th District Court

Howard County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14035

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Kirsten T. Lewis, Appellant, has filed a motion to dismiss her appeal. In the 

motion, Appellant requests that this court withdraw her notice of appeal and “dismiss 

this appeal.” The motion is signed by both Appellant and her counsel in accordance 

with TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2.

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

June 11, 2015 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
EXHIBIT 10.22





 


	 	Equifax Inc.
	 	1550 Peachtree Street, N.W.
	 	Atlanta, Georgia 30309
	 	(404) 885-8300
	December 21, 2012	 


 


Mr. Richard F. Smith 


1550 Peachtree Street, N.W.


Atlanta, GA 30309


 


Re:     Employment
Agreement with Equifax Inc.


 


Dear Rick:


 


This letter relates to your Employment
Agreement with Equifax Inc., dated September 23, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”). Certain provisions of the Employment
Agreement relating to the payments and benefits you are entitled to receive upon termination of employment are subject to the rules
under Section 409A (“Section 409A”) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Also, in order to receive the payments
and benefits under the Employment Agreement, you are required to execute a Release substantially in the form attached to the Employment
Agreement.


 


The IRS rules under Section 409A take
the position that where the receipt of severance pay or other compensation after termination of employment is contingent upon
the executive’s execution of a release there is a potential violation of Section 409A because the executive can manipulate
the timing of the payment by when he or she executes the release (e.g., where the executive is terminated late in the calendar
year). The penalties for noncompliance with Section 409A are substantial, including a 20% additional income tax on the severance
payments. Because this rule relating to releases was not anticipated by many companies, the IRS has provided a correction period
through December 31, 2012 to modify existing agreements.


 


Accordingly, Equifax Inc. hereby modifies
the “within 60 days after the Executive incurs a ’separation from service’” language in Section 8(a)(i) and Section 9(a)(ii)
of the Employment Agreement to read in each case “on the 60th day after the Executive incurs a ’separation from
service’”. This modification is effective as of the date of this letter.


 


As you may be aware,
Section 409A generally requires a delay for six months in the commencement of severance payments to high level executives. This
provision is set forth in Section 8(f) of your Employment Agreement. As a result, the modification in this letter, while required
by Section 409A, will have no impact on the date you actually receive any severance payments.


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


Mr. Richard F. Smith


December 21, 2012


Page 2


 


Please contact the undersigned if you have
any questions relating to this letter.


 


	 	EQUIFAX
    INC.
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ L. Phillip Humann
	 	 	L. Phillip Humann, Chairman
	 	 	Compensation, Human Resources &
	 	 	Management Succession
	 	 	Committee of the Board of Directors


 


Acknowledged and Agreed to on December
21, 2012


 


	/s/ Richard F. Smith	 
	Richard F. Smith
Exhibit 23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-07415, 333-68935, 333-79995, 333-84819, 333-86805 and
333-92815) of BNP Residential Properties, Inc. of our report dated January 10,
2003, except for Notes 5 and 11 as to which the date is March 13, 2003, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of BNP Residential
Properties, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2002.






                                             /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP




Raleigh, North Carolina
March 25, 2003



                                       77
<PAGE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 910

_____________________________
D IEROS N IMMONS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark Borello , Judge

. August 8, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , C.J., and K ELSEY and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Dieros Nimmons, pro se
, Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1193 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1193

  To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to 
extend the period during which certain reclamation fees are required to 
                                be paid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 11, 2019

    Mr. Manchin (for himself, Mr. Jones, Mr. Warner, Mr. Kaine, Ms. 
Duckworth, and Mr. Brown) introduced the following bill; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to 
extend the period during which certain reclamation fees are required to 
                                be paid.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fee 
Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. ABANDONED MINE LAND RECLAMATION FEE.

    Section 402(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 
1977 (30 U.S.C. 1232(b)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2021'' 
and inserting ``September 30, 2036''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
      23.2 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accountant








**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**






We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form
      S-8
      (No. 333-85206), (No. 33-32095), (No. 33-58538),
      (No. 33-32096), (No. 33-87976) and (No. 333-135452) of Northeast
      Bancorp of our report dated August 11, 2006, relating to our audit of the
      consolidated financial statements at June 30, 2006 and for the years ended
      June 30, 2006 and 2005 of Northeast Bancorp and Subsidiaries, which appears
      in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Northeast Bancorp and Subsidiaries for
      the
      year ended June 30, 2007.





/s/
                Baker Newman & NoyesPortland,
                  Maine
            Baker
                Newman & NoyesSeptember
              27, 2007
            Limited
                Liability
                Company
Exhibit 10.1
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 Agreement Employee Company
 RECITALS
   RSUs PBRSUs
 RSUs
 AGREEMENT
 
 ARTICLE I  EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
 Employment
 Duties
 Exclusive Employment




---



##### 



Employee Representations and Warranties as to Employability
     ARTICLE II  PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT
 Employment Period Employment Period
 Initial Term of Employment Period and Extension Terms Initial Term Extension Term
 ARTICLE III  COMPENSATION
 Annual Base Compensation Annual Base Compensation
 .
  2




---



##### 



Employee Performance Bonus Incentive
Compensation Bonus pro rata
 Expenses
 Paid Time Off.
 Insurance
 Retirement Plan
 Grant of Stock Options / Restricted Stock Units
 Grant Of Stock Options
 Options
 b.
    
    Except as otherwise provided in Section 5.2(e) of this
Agreement, once vested, the Options shall have a five (5) year life.c.
    
    Upon a Change of Control (defined below), all of the Options
shall vest.
 Grant of Restricted Stock Units
 RSUs
 Grant of Performance Based Restricted Stock Units
 PBRSUs
  3




---



##### 



Long Term Incentive Plan
 Other Fringe Benefits
 Vehicle Allowance Vehicle
Allowance
 Fees for Employment Counsel
 ARTICLE IV  COVENANTS OF EMPLOYEE
 Covenants Regarding Developments Developments
     Ownership and Covenant to Return Documents, etc.
  4




---



##### 



Nondisclosure Covenant Confidential and Proprietary Information
 Noninterference Covenant Restricted Period
 Covenant of Nonsolicitation of Customers Customer
 Covenant Not to Compete Business Territory
  5




---



##### 



Remedies for Breach
 ARTICLE V  TERMINATION
 Termination and Triggering Events Triggering Event
 Rights Upon Occurrence of a Triggering Event
 Death, Total Disability, Resignation, and Termination by the Company for
Cause
 Termination by Company Without Cause pro rated Severance Benefit
 Termination Arising Out of a Change of Control pro rated Change of Control Severance Benefit
  6




---



##### 



Cessation of Entitlements and Company Right of Offset
 Treatment of Options
 Survival of Certain Obligations
 Definitions
 Resignation
 Specified Employee
 Termination by the Company for Cause
      Termination by the Company Without Cause
 Termination Arising Out of a Change of Control Change of Control
   7




---



##### 



i.e.
 Total Disability
 Section 409A Compliance .
 ARTICLE VI  GENERAL
 Governing Law
 Binding Effect
  8




---



##### 



Assignment
 Complete Understanding
 Amendments
 Waiver
 Venue, Jurisdiction, Etc
 Indemnification of Employee
 Directors and Officers Liability Insurance
 Severability
 Headings
 Notices
 Notices to Employee
 
 Notices to Company
 
  9




---



##### 



Counterparts
 COMPANY:
    
    EMPLOYEE:SXC HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.
 By:Date
    
    Joel Saban          DateIts:
  10
# table118_q14.1_naics
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Corrado De Gasperis, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Novamerican Steel Inc.;

 

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

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly 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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s registered public accounting firm and the audit committee of the registrant’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 registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: April 7, 2008

 

 

| /s/ Corrado De Gasperis         |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
| *Corrado De Gasperis*           |   |
| *Chief Executive Officer*       |   |
| *(Principal Executive Officer)* |   |
#### Susan Sloane, Appellant, v Costco Wholesale Corporation, Respondent.

[855 NYS2d 155]

*523“A defendant who moves for summary judgment in a slip- and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it” *(Frazier v City of New York,*47 AD3d 757, 758 [2008]; *see Prusak v New York City Hous. Auth.,*43 AD3d 1022 [2007]; *Scoppettone v ADJ Holding Corp.,*41 AD3d 693 [2007]). Here, the defendant sustained this burden by submitting evidence that it did not create the condition which caused the plaintiff’s fall, and that no spills or other hazards were found when an employee conducted a walk-through inspection of its store just minutes before the accident occurred. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Frazier v City of New York,*47AD3d 757 [2008]; *Prusak v New York City Hous. Auth.,*43 AD3d at 1023). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Furthermore, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs cross motion to strike the defendant’s answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 based upon spoliation of evidence. The plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant intentionally or negligently failed to preserve crucial evidence after being placed on notice that such evidence might be needed for future litigation *(see Denoyelles v Gallagher,*40 AD3d 1027 [2007]; *Lovell v United Skates of Am., Inc.,*28 AD3d 721 [2006]; *lannucci v Rose,*8 AD3d 437, 438 [2004]; *Andretta v Lenahan,*303 AD2d 527, 528 [2003]). Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL**

 

**OFFICEROF GENERAL PARTNER OF HILAND HOLDINGS GP, LP**

 

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection withthe report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 ofHiland Holdings GP, LP (the “Company”) and filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew S. Harrison,Chief Financial Officer, Vice President-Finance and Secretary of HilandPartners GP Holdings, LLC, the general partner of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date: May 11, 2009 | /s/ Matthew S. Harrison                                        |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    | Matthew S. Harrison                                            |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer,  Vice President-Finance and Secretary |

 

----
EXHIBIT 31.2  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  CERTIFICATION  I, Barry C. Nuss, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of RathGibson, Inc.;  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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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;  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.   Date:  September 14, 2007/s/ Barry C. NussBarry C. NussChief Financial Officer