alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23
                                                                               
                                                                               
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                                       
                                       
      As   independent  public  accountants,  we  hereby  consent  to  the
   incorporation  by  reference  of our report  dated  January  21,  1999,
   included  in this Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998,  into
   Wisconsin Bell, Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statement File No.
   33-53510.
   
      
      
      
      
   
   
   
   ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
   
   
   Chicago, Illinois
   March 29, 1999
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6051

LEONARD A. SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DONALD MYERS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-3129-6-OAK)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leonard A. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his complaint styled pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. To the extent that the district court relied on absolute immunity to dismiss the action, we note that because Appellant

did not seek monetary damages, absolute immunity does not apply.

See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984); Timmerman v.

Brown, 528 F.2d 811, 812 (4th Cir. 1975). However, because the

district court correctly determined that this action would more

properly be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1988), we affirm

the dismissal of the action with the modification that the dismissal be without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1988). 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.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
EX-10.49






Exhibit
10.49




AMENDMENT NO. 6

TO THE

SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS’ ALLIANCE, INC.

PARTNER AGENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT




This amendment (“Amendment”) is made and entered into as of October 15, 2008 by and between
American Team Managers (“ATM”) and Specialty Underwriters’ Alliance, Inc. and its wholly owned
subsidiary SUA Insurance Company (collectively, the “Company”), and amends the Partner Agent
Program Agreement (“Agreement”) entered into by the parties on May 1, 2004, as amended. Any terms
defined in the Agreement and used herein shall have the same meaning in this Amendment as in the
Agreement. In the event that any provision of this Amendment and any provision of the Agreement
are inconsistent or conflicting, the inconsistent or conflicting provision of this Amendment shall
be and constitute an amendment of the Agreement and shall control, but only to the extent that such
provision is inconsistent or conflicting with the Agreement. Any capitalized terms not defined
herein shall be defined as in the Agreement.




Now, therefore, in accordance with Section IX, D of the Agreement and in consideration of the
mutual agreements and covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties wish to amend the Agreement as
follows:



1.     Upon the complete execution of this Amendment, the Maximum Rate of Commission, as listed in
Exhibit A, Section A shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Program Description	 	Line of Business	 	Maximum Rate of Commission effective upon execution
	Artisan and General
Contractor in the states
specifically described in
the underwriting guidelines
of the Company

	 	General Liability and
Commercial Automobile
Liability and Physical Damage
	 	 	20	%
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	E-Comp. in the states
specifically described in the
underwriting guidelines of
the Company

	 	Workers’ Compensation
	 	 	18	%
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Transportation operations
in the territories specifically
defined in the
underwriting guidelines

	 	Commercial General Liability
Commercial Automobile
Liability and Physical Damage
	 	 	20	%





2.     Upon the complete execution of this Amendment, in exchange for consideration of one hundred
thousand dollars ($100,000), Partner Agent hereby forfeits its rights to annual profit share for
all Profit Sharing Years preceding and including Profit Sharing Year 2008.



3.     Beginning with Profit Sharing Year 2009, Partner Agent shall forfeit to Company its right to 25%
of all annual profit sharing, with such forfeiture terminating only when the annual profit sharing
forfeited amounts to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).




 









 








In witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed on their
behalf by their duly authorized officers as of the day, month and year above written.




	 	 	 	 	 
	SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS’ ALLIANCE, INC.

SUA INSURANCE COMPANY



 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Daniel A. Cacchione
 	 	 
	Name:  	Daniel A. Cacchione 	 	 
	Title:  	Vice President and
Chief Underwriting Officer 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	AMERICAN TEAM MANAGERS


 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Chris Michaels
 	 	 
	Name:  	Chris Michaels 	 	 
	Title:  	CEO
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 8

- 00 420

- C V



### ____________________

TRACEY DENBY

, Appellant

V.

JOSEPH HERMAN , Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 172nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. E

- 201,324

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court signed a n order granting Beaumont Independent School

Distr i ct’s and Joseph Herman’s plea to the jurisdiction on October 10, 2018

. Tracey

Denby , Appellant, filed a notice of appeal but failed to file a brief. On February 11

,

201 9 , we noti fied the parties that Appellant’ s brief was past due and had not been

filed, that the appeal would be submitted on the record alone unless we received a

brief and motion for extension of time by February 21 , 201 9 , and w e warned

Appellant that the failure to file a brief could result in dismissa l of the appeal for2 want of prosecution. On February 22, 201 9 , having received no response to the late

brief notice, we notified the parties that the appeal would be submitted to the Court

on March 1 5 , 201 9 , without briefs and without oral argument. See Te x. R. App. P.

39.8.

If an appellant fails to timely file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the

appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure

and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s fail ure to timely file a

brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). In this case, a ppellant failed to assign error for

appellate review by filing a brief. Accordingly , we dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on March 15, 2019

Opinion Delivered March 28, 2019

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
Unassociated Document


     

     

     

    
      THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT is
made as of the 1st Day of
December, 2007 and is supplemental to between the Employment Agreement
made as of 17th Day of April, 2007, made by and among Flagstone Reassurance
Suisse SA (the “Company”) and Frederic Traimond (the “Employee”) (the “Original
Agreement”).

       

      WHEREBY
IT IS AGREED as follows:

       

       

      1)           Definitions and
Interpretation

       

      “Effective Date”, means 1st
January, 2008.

       

      Any term
not defined in this Amendment Agreement shall have the meaning as set out in the
Original Agreement.

       

      


      2)           Amendment

       

      With
effect from the Effective Date, the amendments are as follows:

       

      Section
16 of the Original Agreement shall be deleted and replaced with the following
new Section 16.

       

      
        
          
            
              	
                      16.

                    	
                      Vacation

                    	
                      The
      Employee is entitled to 5 weeks paid vacation (25 working days) per year.
      Vacation is pro-rated for the first year.

                       

                      The
      Employee shall further be entitled to receive his salary at public
      holidays which apply in the Canton of the
  Valais.

                    


            

          

        

      

      


       

       

      3)           Whole
Agreement

       

      
        
          	
                  i)

                	
                  Except
      as specifically amended hereby, the Original Agreement shall continue in
      full force and effect in accordance with the provisions hereof on the date
      hereof and nothing herein contained shall be construed as waiver or
      modification of existing rights under the Original Agreement, except as
      such rights are expressly modified hereby.

                   

                
	
                  ii)

                	
                  This
      Amendment Agreement constitutes an entire agreement and understanding of
      the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. The Amendment
      Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
      of Switzerland.

                


        

      

       

      


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties
hereto have set their hands the date first above written.

      


      
        
          
            
              
                
                  
                    	
                            Flagstone
      Réassurance Suisse SA

                             

                             

                             

                          	 
      
	 /s/
      Guy Swayne	 
      	 /s/
      Frédéric
      Traimond	 
	
                            Guy
      Swayne

                            CEO

                          	
                            Frédéric
      Traimond
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3524 

To amend Rule 611 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to prohibit crossexamination by the accused of minor victims of sexual assault. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 8, 2016 

Mr. FLAKE (for himself and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend Rule 611 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to 

prohibit cross-examination by the accused of minor victims of sexual assault. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF VICTIMS BY THE AC4 CUSED. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Rule 611 of the Federal Rules of 

6 Evidence is amended by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(d) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY PRO SE DEFENDANTS

8 OF MINOR VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT.—In a criminal 

9 case in which a defendant accused of sexual assault of a 

10 minor represents himself or herself pro se, upon applicaVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:01 Dec 12, 2016 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3524.IS S3524

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3524 IS

1 tion by the prosecutor, the minor, or the minor’s rep2 resentative, cross-examination of the minor— 

3 ‘‘(1) shall not be conducted by the defendant 

4 unless the court finds that it is necessitated by ex5 ceptional circumstances to protect the constitutional 

6 rights of the defendant; and 

7 ‘‘(2) shall instead be conducted by an attorney 

8 for the defendant under the supervision of the court. 

9 ‘‘(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this rule— 

10 ‘‘(1) the term ‘minor’ means an individual 

11 under the age of 18; 

12 ‘‘(2) the term ‘sexual assault of a minor’ means 

13 a crime under Federal law involving— 

14 ‘‘(A) any conduct— 

15 ‘‘(i) prohibited under section 1591 or 

16 chapter 109A, 110, or 117 of title 18, 

17 United States Code; or 

18 ‘‘(ii) described in paragraphs (2) 

19 through (5) of Rule 413(d); and 

20 ‘‘(B) a victim who is a minor; and 

21 ‘‘(3) the term ‘victim’ means a person directly 

22 and proximately harmed as a result of the commis23 sion of an offense.’’. 

24 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

25 subsection (a) shall apply— 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3524 IS

1 (1) to any proceeding commenced on or after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act; and 

3 (2) insofar as is just and practicable, to any 

4 proceeding pending on such date of enactment. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00787-CV

Thor Motor Coach, Inc., Appellant

v.

Daniel Rothwell, Individually, and as Dependent Administrator of the

Estate of Mary Rothwell, Decedent, and for the Use and Benefit of

All Surviving Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Mary Cano Rothwell, Appellees

FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-PB-19-000881, THE HONORABLE GUY S. HERMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Thor Motor Coach, Inc. has filed two notices of appeal, and each

appeal has been assigned a separate appellate cause number in this Court. In each cause,

appellant seeks to appeal from an order signed by the probate court on October 7, 2019, denying

appellant’s special appearance.

1

 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a. Appellant has now filed an unopposed

motion requesting that we consolidate the records and dismiss one of the appeals. We grant the 

motion and dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

1

 On September 24, 2019, the probate court granted a motion to transfer venue filed by 

one of appellant’s co-defendants, and subsequently, the cause was transferred to the district court 

in Burnet County. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 86, 89. According to appellant, it was unsure in which 

trial court it should file its notice of appeal and, in an abundance of caution, filed a notice of 

appeal in each court. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. The notice of appeal filed in Burnet County was 

assigned cause number 03-19-00788-CV in this Court, and appellant may continue to pursue its 

appeal in that cause.
2

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: February 7, 2020
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 462 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 462

 To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
     publish a health advisory and submit reports with respect to 
                    microcystins in drinking water.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 11, 2015

Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Portman) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
     publish a health advisory and submit reports with respect to 
                    microcystins in drinking water.

    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 ``Safe and Secure Drinking Water 
Protection Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. MICROCYSTINS IN DRINKING WATER.

    (a) Health Advisory.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency (referred to in this Act as the ``Administrator'') 
shall develop and publish a health advisory including recommendations 
on--
            (1)(A) the level of microcystins in drinking water below 
        which the water is expected to be safe for human consumption; 
        and
            (B) feasible treatment techniques and other means for 
        achieving that level; and
            (2) standardized procedures for testing for microcystins in 
        drinking water.
    (b) Reports.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Administrator shall submit 
to Congress a report that includes--
            (1) a description of the status of the efforts of the 
        Administrator to determine whether to regulate drinking water 
        with respect to the level of microcystins;
            (2) a description of the steps taken by the Administrator 
        to promote testing of drinking water for microcystins in areas 
        that have been affected by harmful algal blooms; and
            (3) an analysis of available treatment techniques and other 
        means for addressing microcystins in drinking water.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2



THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS BEING MADE TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), WHICH CARRIES WITH IT CERTAIN CRIMINAL PENALTIES IN THE EVENT OF A
KNOWING OR WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION.



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20549

         Re: Nuveen Investments, Inc.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") of Nuveen Investments, Inc. (the "Company") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

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

                  (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
         in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.


Dated as of this 6th day of August 2004.


                                                    /s/ John P. Amboian
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    John P. Amboian
                                                    President
Exhibit 32.2

                          CFO 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 Focus  Enhancements,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary L.
Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

      (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 result of  operations of the
Company.

/s/Gary L. Williams
-------------------
Gary L. Williams
Chief Financial Officer
August 21, 2003
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133198 & (44)(50) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 133198 

 COA: 264030 
 Wayne CC: 05-000510-01

DEWAYNE SPAN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 4, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The 

miscellaneous motions are DENIED. 

t0618 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 26, 2007 

 Clerk
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 56 

To prohibit universal service support of commercial mobile service through 

the Lifeline program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To prohibit universal service support of commercial mobile 

service through the Lifeline program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ending Mobile Phone 

5 Welfare Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LIFELINE SUPPORT FOR COM7 MERCIAL MOBILE SERVICE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—A provider of commercial mobile 

9 service may not receive universal service support under 

10 sections 214(e) and 254 of the Communications Act of 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 56 IS

1 1934 (47 U.S.C. 214(e) and 254) for the provision of such 

2 service through the Lifeline program of the Federal Com3 munications Commission. 

4 (b) COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICE DEFINED.—In 

5 this section, the term ‘‘commercial mobile service’’ has the 

6 meaning given such term in section 332(d)(1) of the Com7 munications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d)(1)). 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS