alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JP Foodservice Distributors, Inc., Appellant, v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 47]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered May 11, 2006, dismissing the complaint in an action against an accountant for negligent misrepresentation of a client’s financial condition, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered April 11, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion for a joint trial of this action with an action brought by plaintiff against the client, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted on the ground that there is no evidence of conduct on *317defendant’s part linking it to plaintiff and evincing its understanding of plaintiff’s reliance on the closing balance sheet it certified *(see Credit Alliance Corp. v Arthur Andersen & Co.,*65 NY2d 536, 551 [1985]; *see e.g. Security Pac. Bus. Credit v Peat Marwick Main & Co.,*79 NY2d 695, 704-706 [1992]; *William Iselin & Co. v Mann Judd Landau,*71 NY2d 420, 425-427 [1988]). Plaintiffs motion for a joint trial was properly denied as moot in view of the grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The grant of summary judgment also necessarily required denial of plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint *(see Buckley & Co. v City of New York,*121 AD2d 933, 934-935 [1986], *lv dismissed*69 NY2d 742 [1987]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Marlow, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 98-11008 Conference Calendar

KENNETH McGREGOR, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WHITE, Warden; REAGEN, Assistant Warden; CHANCE, Major; D. POLLOCK, Captain; CAPTAIN SAVERS; MRS. JOHNSON, Chief of Classification; J. RODRIGUEZ, Correctional Officer III; STILES, Correctional Officer III, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:96-CV-153

-------------------- August 24, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kenneth McGregor (# 564450), a state prisoner, has appealed the magistrate judge’s order granting the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law. The standard of review is de novo. Allen v. Pennsylvania Engineering Corp. , 102 F.3d 194, 196 (5th Cir. 1996). Prison officials have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to protect inmates “from violence at the hands of other prisoners.”No. 98-11008 -2-

Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (citation and internal quotation omitted). To establish a failure-to-protect claim, an inmate must show that he was “incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm and that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his need for protection.” Neals v. Norwood , 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995). “In order to act with deliberate indifference, ‘the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.’” Id. (quoting Farmer , 511 U.S. at 837). McGregor was involved in a fight with another inmate, Dwight Olige. The magistrate judge held that the defendants were entitled to judgment because McGregor had failed to present any evidence showing that the defendants knew or had reason to know that Olige was violent. McGregor argues that Olige’s records will establish his violent tendencies and that the defendant had failed to rebut his allegations. McGregor bore the burden of proof. McGregor has failed to provide the court with a transcript of the trial and Olige’s disciplinary records are not in the record on appeal. McGregor has failed to show that the magistrate judge erred in granting the motion for judgment as a matter of law. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We note that McGregor has now accumulated at least two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution McGregorNo. 98-11008 -3- 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).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

28. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

(Numbers in thousands)

Reason

White Black or African

American Asian Hispanic or Latinoethnicity

2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006

NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED

 Total unemployed .................................................................. 5,350 5,002 1,700 1,549 259 205 1,191 1,081

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs .......... 2,681 2,479 770 660 104 83 585 522

 On temporary layoff ................................................................ 755 764 137 115 14 13 151 159

 Not on temporary layoff .......................................................... 1,926 1,715 634 545 90 70 434 363

 Permanent job losers ............................................................ 1,405 1,236 422 351 70 54 273 216

 Persons who completed temporary jobs .............................. 521 479 212 194 20 16 161 147

Job leavers ............................................................................... 654 608 147 161 35 22 113 107

Reentrants ................................................................................ 1,589 1,514 596 564 92 75 355 331

New entrants ............................................................................ 425 401 186 164 28 25 139 121

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

 Total unemployed .................................................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs ......... 50.1 49.6 45.3 42.6 40.2 40.4 49.1 48.3

 On temporary layoff ............................................................... 14.1 15.3 8.0 7.4 5.4 6.4 12.7 14.7

 Not on temporary layoff ......................................................... 36.0 34.3 37.3 35.2 34.7 34.1 36.5 33.6

 Job leavers .............................................................................. 12.2 12.2 8.7 10.4 13.6 10.9 9.5 9.9

 Reentrants ............................................................................... 29.7 30.3 35.1 36.4 35.6 36.6 29.8 30.7

 New entrants ........................................................................... 8.0 8.0 11.0 10.6 10.7 12.1 11.6 11.2

UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF THE

 CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE

 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs ......... 2.2 2.0 4.5 3.8 1.6 1.2 3.0 2.5

 Job leavers .............................................................................. .5 .5 .9 .9 .5 .3 .6 .5

 Reentrants ............................................................................... 1.3 1.2 3.5 3.3 1.4 1.1 1.8 1.6

 New entrants ........................................................................... .3 .3 1.1 .9 .4 .4 .7 .6

 NOTE: Estimates for the above race groups (white, black or African American, and Asian) do not sum to totals because data are not presented for all races. In

addition, persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race and, therefore, are classified by ethnicity as well as by race. Beginning in

January 2006, data reflect revised population controls used in the household survey.

252
#### In the Matter of Kim Edelstein, Respondent, v Suffolk County Board of Elections et al., Respondents, and Scott Salimando, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 321]

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition nominating Scott Salimando as the candidate of the School Tax Relief Party for the public office of Member of the Assembly, 3rd Assembly District, in the general election to be held on November 7, 2006, Scott Salimando appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated October 17, 2006, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and invalidated the nominating petition.

*946Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the contention of the appellant candidate, the petitioner substantially complied with the Board of Elections rules regarding the filing of specifications of objections to nominating petitions *(see Matter of Sadofsky v DiGiacomo,*264 AD2d 701 [1999]; *see also Matter of Gallonty v New York City Bd. of Elections,*224 AD2d 563 [1996]; *Matter of Sullivan v New York City Bd. of Elections,*224 AD2d 565 [1996]).

The Supreme Court properly entertained specific objections to signatures on the appellant’s nominating petition that had not been asserted before the Board of Elections *(see Matter of Smith v Marchi,*143 AD2d 325 [1988]; *see also Matter of Starr v Board of Elections of City of N.Y.,*89 AD2d 978 [1982]; *Matter of Flowers v Wells,*57 AD2d 636 [1977]) because the appellant was sufficiently apprised of the grounds for the objections *(see Matter of Santoro v Schreiber,*263 AD2d 953 [1999]; *Matter of Maxwell v Hill,*225 AD2d 947 [1996]; *Matter of Mazza v Board of Elections of County of Albany,*196 AD2d 679 [1993]; *but see Matter of Levitt v Mahoney,*133 AD2d 516 [1987]; *Matter of Belak v Rossi,*96 AD2d 1011 [1983]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.
A05A0745.

#### DAVIS v. THE STATE.

(631 SE2d 719)

Decided May 17, 2006.

Norman Davis, *pro se.*

*J. Brown Moseley, District Attorney, Charles M. Stines, Joseph K. Mulholland, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

Ruffin, Chief Judge.

In *Davis v. State,*
      *1*
      **we affirmed Norman Davis’s convictions for child molestation, aggravated child molestation, and kidnapping. The Supreme Court granted Davis’s petition for certiorari to consider certain issues.2 However, the Supreme Court found that Davis did not timely file his notice of appeal in this Court and thus determined that we lacked jurisdiction over this matter.3 In accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling, we hereby dismiss Davis’s appeal.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*Johnson, R J., and Barnes, J., concur.*

273 Ga. App. 397 (615 SE2d 203) (2005).

See *Davis v. State,*280 Ga. 352 (628 SE2d 374) (2006).

We note that Davis initially filed a timely notice of appeal, but the case was remanded to the trial court. He failed to file his second notice of appeal in a timely manner.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PROBATION OFFICE

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

WILFREDO TORRES Mailing Address: CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER October 19, 2012 50 WALNUT STREET

200 FEDERAL PLAZA ROOM 1001

ROOM 130 NEWARK, NJ 07102

PATERSON, NJ

(973) 357-4080 www.njp.uscourts.gov

FAX: (973) 3574092

Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh,

United States District Judge

Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal

Building & U.S. Courthouse

P.O. Box 0999

Newark, N.J. 07102-0999

RE: U.S. v. Justin Birdsall

DkL No.: 11-00134-001

RequestforPermission

to Travel Outside ofthe

United States

Dear Judge Cavanaugh:

On June 13,2011, the above-referenced individual was sentenced by Your Honor to a term

of five years probation for the offense of Possession of Material Constituting/Containing Child

Pornography The offender was ordered to pay a $100 Special Assessment fee, along with the

following special conditions: alcoholldrug testing/treatment; computer search; location monitoring;

mental health treatment; no contact with minors; and sex offender registration.

The offender has been supervised by this office since the commencement ofsupervision and

has been in general compliance as of yet. He completed his one-year term of location monitoring,

as well as sex offender treatment. All drug tests administered have yielded negative results.

The offender has requested permission to travel, along with his family, to the Dominican

Republic for vacation in November. (Please see attached letter from the offender, dated August 10,

2012.) The travel would conclude in one week and his parents have assured the undersigned that the

offender would not be left alone. They had initially planned on traveling to Mexico; however, there

was an extended delay in receiving a response from the Mexican Consulate. Therefore, their new

itinerary has been changed to the Dominican Republic. The undersigned and Assistant United States

Attorney Ronnell Wilson have no objections to this travel. The undersigned will be available to

discuss this matter if Your Honor should wish. I may be contacted at (973) 445-8517.

Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 18 Filed 11/07/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 42
Respectfully submitted,

WILFREDO TORRES, Chief

U.S. Probation Officer

4

- I / /1_

By: Susan Ii Karlak

Senior U.S. Probation Officer

/sek

Enclosure

Please check the appropriate x.

Permission to travel is granted.

I } Permission to travel is not nranted.

Case 2:11-cr-00134-CCC Document 18 Filed 11/07/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 43
Case 2:11-cv-03196-KSH-CLW Document 13 Filed 06/01/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 299
Case 2:11-cv-03196-KSH-CLW Document 13 Filed 06/01/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 300
EX-10.18



 Exhibit 10.18 
 Waste Connections, Inc. 
 Amended and Restated 

Compensation Plan for Independent Directors 
 This Compensation Plan for Independent Directors, as amended and restated herein, shall be effective January 1, 2013, until changed by the Board of Directors. This Plan shall apply to independent
directors only. Directors who are employed by Waste Connections, Inc. (the “Company”) are not entitled to receive separate compensation for participation in Board or Committee Meetings. 

Independent directors shall be compensated by payment of a basic monthly retainer of $5,000 per month. Committee Chairs shall be entitled
to additional compensation, to be added to their monthly retainers, as follows: 
  

					
	 Audit Committee Chair
	  	$	1,250 per month	  
	 Compensation Committee Chair
	  	$	833.33 per month	  
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chair
	  	$	416.67 per month	  

 No additional payment shall be made with respect to attendance or participation in Board and Committee
meetings, other than payment or reimbursement of out of pocket travel expenses incurred in connection with meetings attended in person. 
 All payments under this Compensation Plan shall be paid monthly on the
15th day of each month, or as soon thereafter as
administratively practicable and, in any event, prior to March 15 of the calendar year following the year in which the services with respect to such payment were performed. 

Independent directors shall be granted, at the discretion of the Board, an annual award of restricted stock units with a targeted value
of approximately $150,000 on the date of grant. The grant shall be made in conjunction with the Company’s annual grant to officers and employees, typically in February of each year, provided that the grant date may be changed from time to time
at the discretion of the Board. The restricted stock units will be granted pursuant to the Company’s Third Amended and Restated 2004 Equity Incentive Plan and will vest, at the discretion of the Board, in two equal installments on the date of
grant and the first anniversary of the date of grant. The number of restricted stock units granted may be less in future years if other types of equity awards are issued to independent directors in conjunction with the restricted stock unit grants.
**Exhibit21.1**

 

SUBSDIARIES OF THEREGISTRANT

 
| **Name**                        | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of  Incorportion or  Orgainzation** |
|---------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| Sciele Pharma Sales, Inc.       |       | Delaware                                                     |
| Sciele Pharma Cayman Limited    |       | Cayman                                                       |
| Sciele Pharma Ireland Limited   |       | Ireland                                                      |
| Sciele Pharma (Cyprus) Limited  |       | Cyprus                                                       |
| Sciele Pharma Netherlands, B.V. |       | Netherlands                                                  |

 

----
EX-10.34



 EXHIBIT 10.34 
 DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTORS 
 Upon the recommendation
of the Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board of Directors of American Express Company, on November 20, 2012, the Board approved the payment of the following compensation to each non-management director of the Board in respect of
his/her service on the Board effective January 1, 2013: 
  

	 	•	 	 an annual retainer of $90,000; provided that this amount shall be reduced by $20,000 if the Director does not attend at least 75% of the meetings of
the Board and meetings of the committees on which the Director serves; 


  

	 	•	 	 a grant of Share Equivalent Units having a value of $155,000 to be awarded under the 2003 Share Equivalent Unit Plan for Directors upon the
Director’s election or reelection to the Board at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders; 


  

	 	•	 	 an annual retainer of $20,000 for the chairs of the Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee and Compensation and Benefits Committee, and an annual
retainer of $10,000 for the chairs of the Innovation and Technology Committee, Nominating and Governance Committee, and Public Responsibility Committee; 



 

	 	•	 	 an annual retainer of $20,000 for each member of the Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee, an annual retainer of $10,000 for each member of the
Compensation and Benefits Committee, and an annual retainer of $5,000 for each member of the Innovation and Technology Committee, Nominating and Governance Committee, and Public Responsibility Committee; 



 

	 	•	 	 an annual lead director fee of $20,000 (provided that if the lead director is the chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee, the retainer for
service as chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee shall not be paid); and 


  

	 	•	 	 reimbursement of customary expenses for attending Board, committee, and shareholder meetings.
Exhibit
31.1




CERTIFICATIONS




I, Randy
Brown, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Driver Passport,
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 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
small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:




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




(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and




(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal
control over financial reporting; and




5. The
small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):




(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and




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




DRIVER
      PASSPORT, INC.Date:
      April 28, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Randy
      BrownRandy
      BrownChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
S05Y0398.

#### IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM S. SHELFER, JR.

(615 SE2d 511)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to the Notice of Discipline filed by the State Bar alleging that Respondent William S. Shelter, Jr. violated Rules 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II) and 9.3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a violation of Rule 1.15 (I) or 1.15 (II) is disbarment, while the maximum sanction for a violation of Rule 9.3 is a public reprimand.

According to the facts set forth in the Notice of Discipline, the Investigative Panel of the State Disciplinary Board found probable cause as to the following: Shelter was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1967; in January 2004 the bank at which Shelter maintained his attorney trust account provided the State Bar with an *553overdraft notice for that account; the State Bar requested information from Shelfer to explain the overdraft; although Shelfer initially made attempts to explain the overdraft, he eventually ceased responding to the State Bar’s requests and failed to provide all of the documentation requested by the State Bar; and, after the matter was referred to the Investigative Panel of the State Disciplinary Board, Shelfer was personally served with a Notice of Investigation but failed to respond thereto.

Decided June 30, 2005.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Elizabeth M. Williamson, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

Based on these facts, the Investigative Panel determined that disbarment would be the appropriate disciplinary sanction, noting in aggravation Shelter’s prior disciplinary history. See *In the Matter of Shelfer,*278 Ga. 55 (597 SE2d 365) (2004). Although Shelfer was properly served with the Notice of Discipline by publication pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii), he has not responded in any manner. Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth above, we agree with the State Bar’s recommendation and find that disbarment is the warranted sanction in this case. Therefore, Shelfer hereby is disbarred from the practice of law in Georgia. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Disbarred.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-4 Filed 06/03/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 124