alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 12/23/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

In re: ALLAN R. CRUMP and SHIRLEY A. CRUMP,

Debtors,

--------------------------------------------------- ALLAN R. CRUMP, SHIRLEY A. CRUMP, Appellants,

v.INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, MICHAEL PIPPIN, JUDY PIPPIN,

Appellees. No. 96-1157 (D.C. No. 95-N-582) (D. Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , LOGAN and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the1 The judgment appealed from also involved the district court’s affirmance of the

bankruptcy court’s order denying in part debtors’ objection to the Internal Revenue Service’s proof of claim. Debtors do not raise the proof of claim issue in their briefs on appeal; thus they have waived any allegation of error as to that decision. - 2 - determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Debtors Allan R. Crump and Shirley A. Crump appeal the decision of the district court affirming the United States Bankruptcy Court’s denial of their application for a show cause order against appellees Michael Pippin and Judy Pippin. 1 Debtors requested, inter alia, that the bankruptcy court order appellees to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362 by attempting to gain possession of property that the Internal Revenue Service seized fromdebtors and sold to appellees. Debtors asked the court to order appellees to pay exemplary damages, to cease attempts to obtain possession of the property, and other relief. The bankruptcy court found that because debtors sought declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief, they were required under Bankruptcy Rule 7001 to bring their claim as an adversary proceeding. We have reviewed the briefs and the record and are satisfied that the district courtaccurately summarized the facts and correctly applied the law. We cannot add significantly to the analysis of the district court in its Order and Memorandum of Decision of March 28, 1996, and therefore AFFIRM for substantially the reasons stated therein.- 3 -- 4 -

The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court James K. Logan Circuit Judge
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 657 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend to all veterans with 

a serious service-connected injury eligibility to participate in the family 

caregiver services program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 4, 2015 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend to all 

veterans with a serious service-connected injury eligibility 

to participate in the family caregiver services 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 ‘‘Caregivers Expansion 

5 and Improvement Act of 2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 657 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION TO ALL VETERANS WITH A SERIOUS 

2 SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY OF ELIGI3 BILITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN FAMILY CARE4 GIVER PROGRAM. 

5 Section 1720G(a)(2)(B) of title 38, United States 

6 Code, is amended by striking ‘‘on or after September 11, 

7 2001’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Amendment No. 2, Amended and Restated Equity Incentive Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.1b 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 
 Effective November 20, 2008 
 TO 
 THE PMI GROUP, INC.

 AMENDED AND RESTATED EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 (Amended September 19, 2007) 
 THE PMI GROUP, INC., having adopted The PMI Group, Inc. Amended
and Restated Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) as of May 27, 2004, and having amended and restated the Plan as of November 16, 2005, and again as of September 19, 2007, and further having amended it effective as of
November 14, 2007, hereby amends the restated Plan as follows effective as of November 20, 2008: 
 Section 8.1, “Grant of
Stock Units,” of SECTION 8, “NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR AWARDS,” is amended to read as follows: 
 8.1 Grant of
Stock Units. On the first business day on or after April 15, July 15, October 15 and January 15 of each year, each individual then serving as a Non-employee Director automatically shall be granted Stock Units with
an initial value of $4,000, each Stock Unit valued at the Fair Market Value per Share, but in no event shall any Non-employee Director receive more than 2,500 Stock Units in any calendar quarter. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The PMI Group, Inc., by its duly authorized officer, has executed this Amendment No. 2 to the restated Plan on the date
indicated below. 
  

			
	THE PMI GROUP, INC.
		
	By:	 	  /s/ Charles Broom
	Name:	 	Charles Broom
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President
		
	Date:	 	  Jan. 16, 2009
#### IKI v. CROWLEY, Alien Property Custodian, et al.

No. 810.

District Court, W. D. Washington, N. D.

May 10, 1944.

Hayden, Merritt, Summers & Bucey, of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff.

J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., of Seattle, Wash., and George A. McNulty, Chief Alien Property Unit, J. A. Fridinger, Attorney, Alien Property Unit, of Arlington, Va., and A. Matt. Werner, General Counsel to Alien Property Custodian, War Division, all of Washington, D. C., for defendants.

BLACK, District Judge.

After consideration of the very comprehensive briefs in behalf of each party which supplement the oral ' arguments which were submitted, and regardless of whether or not the complaint is or is not otherwise sufficient, I am satisfied that it is essential that the plaintiff affirmatively allege that he is not a national of a foreign or enemy country. Such allegation is not now present.

Fot such reason in any event the defendants’ motion to dismiss should be granted.

Order in harmony herewith may be presented, after notice.
Exhibit 32.1
 GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Under
Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  May 8, 2009
    /s/ GREGORY B. KENNYGregory B. KennyChief Executive OfficerDate:  May 8, 2009
    /s/ BRIAN J. ROBINSONBrian J. RobinsonChief Financial Officer
Order entered August 2 5 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00073
- CR ROGER ALLEN STULCE, JR., Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. 380
- 82426
- 2012



### O RDER
The Court DENIES appellant’s second motion to extend time to file his brief.
We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court sh all make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the t rial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial c ourt is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommen dations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### In re John L. Klingenhagen, Sr.

November 28, 2000

Case No. (Fiduciary) 63530

BY JUDGE ROBERT W. WOOLDRIDGE, JR.

This matter came before me for hearing upon the petition of Karen German for the appointment of a guardian and a conservator for John L. Klingenhagen, Sr. After granting that petition, I took under advisement Petitioner’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Virginia Code § 37.1-134.7(C). That motion is now granted.

I find that the Petitioner is entitled to the reimbursement of reasonable costs and fees pursuant to the language of Virginia Code § 37.1-134.7(C). Section 37.1-134.7(C) states in part, “if a guardian or conservator is appointed and the estate of the incapacitated person is available and sufficient therefor, the court shall order that the petitioner be reimbursed from the estate for all costs and fees.” I find that the estate in this case is sufficient enough to accommodate the reimbursement of such costs and fees. I further find that it was the intention of the General Assembly that under such circumstances as are present here, “costs and fees” was intended to include attorney’s fees.

Support for reimbursement of attorney’s fees is also found outside of § 37.1-134.7(C). In Virginia, as a general rule, a court can only grant a prevailing party its reasonable attorney’s fees if either a contract or statute permits such an award. *See Prospect Dev. Co.*v. *Bershader,*258 Va. 75, 92, 515 S.E.2d 291 (1999). As noted in *Bershader,*however, there are several exceptions to this rule. A trustee who defends a suit against his trust may recover reasonable attorney’s fees resulting from the suit. *See Cohn*v. *Central Nat. Bank,*191 Va. 12, 60 S.E.2d 30 (1950). The same is true for an executor or administrator of a will duly admitted to probate. An executor or administrator may recover from the estate the necessary expenses of defending a suit brought either to revoke the probate or test the validity of such will. *See Butt*v. *Murden,*154 Va. 10, 152 S.E. 330 (1930).

*538In petitioning for the appointment of a guardian or conservator, Ms. German is not unlike a trustee, executor, or administrator. I find that when she prevails in such a suit, she is entitled to recover attorney’s fees both under § 37.1-134.7(C) and as an exception to the general American rule.

Petitioner is awarded costs of $3,068 and attorney’s fees of $10,000, to be paid out of the estate of John L. Klingenhagen, Sr.
EXHIBIT 32(b)

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63

of Title 18 of the United States
Code

I, Reuben Gamoran, the Chief Financial Officer of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (the Company), certify that to the best of
my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K dated February 11, 2008 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, 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 said Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ REUBEN GAMORANReuben Gamoran Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: February 11, 2008
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136857 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136857 

 COA: 283686 

Livingston CC: 06-015750-FH

ROBERT JAY HEXIMER, 06-015966-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2008 order 

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. 

1020 

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. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
1

Technical information: (202) 691-6569

Media contact: 691-5902

USDL 07-1643

For release: Immediate

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

NONMETROPOLITAN AREA OCCUPATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES, 2006

Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) data for nonmetropolitan areas are now available, the Bureau

of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor announced today. Although BLS has previously released occupational employment and wage estimates for the nation, states, and metropolitan areas, this is the first

time that OES data have been released for the parts of the states lying outside of metropolitan areas. The

data consist of employment, hourly and annual mean wages, and percentile wage estimates by occupation for

over 170 nonmetropolitan areas. Most states contain between one and six state-defined nonmetropolitan

areas that, with the metropolitan areas, exhaust the geography of the state. New Jersey does not contain any

nonmetropolitan areas. The data for nonmetropolitan and metropolitan areas can be found at http://www.bls.

gov/oes/current/oessrcma.htm. A complete list of available areas with the counties and towns that comprise

them is available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/msa_def.htm. In the future, these nonmetropolitan area

estimates will be included as part of the annual OES data release.

Additional Information

The Occupational Employment Statistics program produces occupational employment and wage estimates

nationwide and for all states, 409 metropolitan areas, and over 170 nonmetropolitan areas. The OES program also produces national occupational employment and wage estimates for several levels of industry detail.

Wage data include mean hourly and annual wages and 10th, 25th, 50th (median), 75th, and 90th percentile

wages. OES data are produced by a cooperative effort between BLS and State Workforce Agencies, and

are based on a sample of 1.2 million business establishments, collected in 6 semiannual panels over a 3-year

period. Complete May 2006 Occupational Employment Statistics data are available from the OES Web site

at http://www.bls.gov/oes/.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Teofilo V. Ramirez, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 399]

*954Claimant, a truck loader, was discharged by his supervisor after failing to report to work without notice on three consecutive days in March 2006. After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge, citing claimant’s inconsistent testimony and prior statements to Department of Labor representatives, found that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his job due to misconduct. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed, prompting this appeal by claimant.

We affirm. “It is well settled that an employee’s unauthorized absence from work may constitute disqualifying misconduct” *(Matter of Owens [Commissioner of Labor],*306 AD2d 608, 609 [2003] [citations omitted]; *see Matter of Kessler [Commissioner of Labor],*40 AD3d 1236, 1237 [2007]). There is no dispute that claimant failed to report for work on the days in question and, to the extent that claimant contends that he reported his absence to his employer on at least two of the three days at issue, we need note only that such testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Iskhakov [Commissioner of Labor],*11 AD3d 872, 873 [2004]). Significantly, claimant’s testimony on this point at the hearing directly contradicted his prior statements to Department of Labor representatives. Under such circumstances, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant’s absence from work was unauthorized and, hence, constituted disqualifying misconduct *(see e.g. Matter of Glowinski [Commissioner of Labor],*5 AD3d 839 [2004]).

Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Exhibit 31.2


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael J. Wolnik, hereby certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of First Ipswich
Bancorp;

(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
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
report;

(4) The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 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 quarterly report our
      conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
      procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report
      based on such evaluation; and

      c) Disclosed in this quarterly 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 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 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 fulfilling 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 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 controls over financial reporting.


/s/ Michael J. Wolnik
------------------------------------
Michael J. Wolnik
Chief Financial Officer

May 13, 2005
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      I, Shi kai Bui, Chief Executive Officer and I, Kenny Lo, Chief Financial
Officer of Sun Motor International, Inc. (the "Company") certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K of Sun Motor
International, Inc.;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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
annual report; and

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the period presented in this annual report.

Date: Aug 15, 2007


/s/ Shi Kai Bui
------------------------
Shi Kai Bui
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Kenny Lo
------------------------
Kenny Lo
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.2

 

 

 

NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

In July 2002, the Board of Directors of Wisconsin Electric Power Company ended the engagement of Arthur Andersen LLP as the Company's independent public accountants, and engaged Deloitte & Touche LLP to serve as the Company's independent auditors for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002.  For more information, see the Company's current report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on July 8, 2002.  

Because Arthur Andersen LLP has ceased operations, the Company has been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen LLP's written consent to the incorporation by reference of Arthur Andersen LLP's report on the Company's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2001, which is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, into the following Registration Statement:

- Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-101054) - First Mortgage Bonds and Debt Securities.

Accordingly, the Company has omitted Arthur Andersen LLP's consent in reliance upon Rule 437a under the Securities Act of 1933, which permits the Company to dispense with the requirement to file the written consent of Arthur Andersen LLP under the circumstances.

Arthur Andersen LLP has not consented to the incorporation of their report included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K into the Registration Statement listed above.  Therefore, with respect to transactions in the Company's securities pursuant to the Registration Statement that are made on or after the date this Annual Report on Form 10-K is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Arthur Andersen LLP will not have any liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the Company's financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen LLP or for any omission to state a material fact required to be stated in those financial statements and thus no claim could be asserted against Arthur Andersen LLP under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act.  To the extent provided in Section 11(b)(3)(C) of the Securities Act, however, other persons who are liable under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act, including the Company's officers and directors, may still rely on Arthur Andersen's original audit report as being made by an expert for purposes of establishing a due diligence defense under Section 11(b) of the Securities Act.