alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Leonard E. JORDAN v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT, NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA.

Civ. A. No. 43555.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 10, 1967.

*25Leonard E. Jordan, in pro. per.

No appearance filed for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN W. LORD, Jr., District Judge.

Petitioner seeks rehearing of his request to file and proceed in forma pauperis in an action for *removal*of a criminal prosecution on the ground that he is being denied effective assistance of counsel on appeal. While this may be the basis of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, such relief is not sought here. Indeed, petitioner admits that this remedy is not sought because he knows that a habeas corpus petition will be denied for failure to exhaust state remedies. So petitioner seeks to circumvent the law by bombarding the court with frivolous petitions for removal.

As stated in the original order, “removal” is inoperative here. The removal statute provides for the removal of a state criminal prosecution to the federal court when the accused is “denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any *law*providing for the *equal*civil rights of citizens * * * ” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1443(1) (Emphasis added). It has been held that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutes a “law” providing for equal civil rights; but that the due process clause is not such a law providing for *equal*civil rights within the contemplation of the removal statute. Peacock v. City of Greenwood, 347 F.2d 679 (5th Cir. 1965) revd. on other grounds 384 U.S. 808, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 16 L.Ed.2d 944 (1965). Furthermore, it is the view of the Supreme Court of the United States that not every violation of the equal protection clause justifies removal; rather only those violations involving discrimination based on race. In State of Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 1790, 16 L.Ed.2d 925 (1965), the Supreme Court concluded: “ * * * that the phrase ‘any law providing for * * * equal civil rights’ must be construed to mean any law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality.” It should be noted here that the Third Circuit ruled along these lines even before the definitive ruling of the Supreme Court. City of Chester v. Anderson, 347 F.2d 823 (3rd Cir. 1965). Petitioner’s claim of ineffectiveness of counsel, on its face, in no way falls within the racial discrimination contemplation of the removal statute.

Finally, as stated in the original order, Petitioner’s request comes too late. Petition for removal must come before trial. *2628 U.S.C.A. § 1446(c). Congress eliminated post-judgment removal when it enacted § 641 of the Revised Statutes of 1874.

For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s request for leave to file and proceed in forma pauperis in petitioning this Court for rehearing in the above matter is denied.
www.ResearchonDisability.org 866-538-9521 disability.statistics@unh.edu

December 11, 2013

Hart Senate Office Building, Room SH-902, Capitol Complex, Washington, DC

2013 Annual Compendium on Disability Statistics

8:45am Arrival of Attendees - Breakfast

9:00am Welcome

John O’Neill, StatsRRTC Director, Kessler Research Foundation

9:15am Overview of Compendium

Andrew Houtenville, Associate Professor, Research Director, University of New Hampshire Institute on Disability

9:40am Comments

Mark Perriello, President and CEO, American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD)

10:00am

Data Workshop 

Matthew Brault, Survey Researcher – US Census Bureau 

 Brian Armour – Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Nat’l Center on Birth Defects and Dev. Disabilities (NCBDDD)

Terrence McMenamin, Economist – US Department of Labor (DOL), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

Richard Horne – US Department of Labor (DOL), Office of Disability and Employment Policy (ODEP)

11:00am Questions & Answers

11:30am 

 to 

1:00pm 

 

LUNCH & DISCUSSION

Third Annual Research-to-Policy Roundtable

1:00pm Opening Remarks

Colin Schwartz, Manager, Policy and Communications, American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD)

1:05pm Introduction

Mark Perriello, President and CEO, American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) 

1:15pm Overview of Research Perspective

David Wittenburg, Senior Researcher, Mathematica Policy Research

1:30pm

Overview of Administration Priorities 

Henry Claypool, Executive Vice President, American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) 

Sharon Lewis, Principal Deputy, Administration for Community Living and Secretary’s’ Senior Advisor on Disability Policy 

Charlie Lakin, Director, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)

Jennifer Sheehy, Deputy Assistant Secretary, US Department of Labor (DOL), Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP)

2:30pm Reactions, Questions & Answers

Henry Claypool, Executive Vice President, American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) 

2:55pm Concluding Remarks

Andrew Houtenville, Associate Professor, University of New Hampshire Institute on Disability
Exhibit 3.2
 DLBMS, INC.
(a Delaware corporation)
 AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS
 ARTICLE I
OFFICES
 Registered Office
 Other Offices
 ARTICLE II
MEETINGS OF STOCKHOLDERS
 Annual Meetings provided however
 Special Meetings
 Meetings by Remote Communications




---



##### 



provided
    Notice of Meetings
 Quorum
 2




---



##### 



provided however
 Voting
 Proxy Representation
 Organization
   Conduct of Meeting
 3




---



##### 



Adjournment
 Consent of Stockholders in Lieu of Meeting
   4




---



##### 



provided
 List of Stockholders Entitled to Vote provided however
 5




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
 Powers
 Number and Term
 Resignations
 Removal
 Newly Created Directorships and Vacancies
 Meetings
   6




---



##### 



Notice of Meetings
 Quorum, Voting and Adjournment
 Committees
 Action Without a Meeting
 7




---



##### 



Compensation
 Remote Meeting
 ARTICLE IV
OFFICERS
 Number
 Other Officers and Agents
 Chairman
 President
 8




---



##### 



Vice Presidents
 Treasurer
 Secretary
 Assistant Treasurers and Assistant Secretaries
 Corporate Funds and Checks
 9




---



##### 



Contracts and Other Documents
 Compensation
 Ownership of Stock of Another Corporation
 Delegation of Duties
 Resignation and Removal
 Vacancies
 ARTICLE V
STOCK
 Certificates of Stock provided
 10




---



##### 



Transfer of Shares
 Lost, Stolen, Destroyed or Mutilated Certificates
 List of Stockholders Entitled To Vote
 Dividends
 11




---



##### 



Fixing Date for Determination of Stockholders of Record
 provided however
   12




---



##### 



Registered Stockholders
 ARTICLE VI
INDEMNIFICATION
 Right to Indemnification
   13




---



##### 



Non-Exclusivity of Rights
 Insurance
 Indemnification of Employees and Agents of the Corporation
 Nature of Rights
 Subrogation
 Severability
 14




---



##### 



ARTICLE VII
MISCELLANEOUS
 Amendments
 Electronic Transmission
 Corporate Seal
 Fiscal Year
 Waiver of Notice
 Section Headings
 15




---



##### 



Inconsistent Provisions; Changes in Delaware Law
  16




---



##### 



CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY
  /s/ James Heiser, SecretaryJames Heiser, Secretary Signature Page to Amended and Restated Bylaws of DLBMS, Inc.
#### Benjamin Elson, Respondent, *v.*William Ungerer, Appellant.

*Slander—examination before trial.*

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 16th day of September, 1913, denying a motion to vacate an order for the examination of the defendant before trial.

Clarke, J.:

This is an action for slander. Plaintiff made a motion for an order for examination, before trial, of the defendant which motion was granted, the order requiring the defendant to testify “ concerning the matters relevant to the issues in this action and that the examination be limited until the further order of this court' to the matters set forth in the affidavit of the defendant hereto annexed." (This is obviously a mistake; it should be “ of the plaintiff hereto annexed.”) In that affidavit is the following: “ The plaintiff is desirous of examining the defendant in reference to the issues raised herein, to wit: The presence of the defendant on or about the 31st day of April, 1913, in a public restaurant, also of William D. Corson and other persons and the names and residences of such persons, the statements and words uttered and spoken by the defendant concern*897ing the plaintiff at said time and place; the statements and words uttered by the defendant concerning the plaintiff in the presence of William D. Cor-son and others on or about the 22d day of April, 1913; the names and residences of the persons other than Corson present at that time and the place where the said words were spoken as alleged in the complaint herein and the knowledge by defendant that said statements and words uttered by him were false.” In *Gavin*v. *New York Contracting Co.*(122 App. Div. 643) Mr. Justice Houghton said: “Nor should the witness have been asked the names of other witnesses to the accident. An order for an examination is for the eliciting of Testimony and not to gain information as to who might be called as witnesses.” In *Nocito*v. *Acierno*(122 App. Div. 45), which was an action for slander, Mr. Justice Ingraham said: “An examination before trial is not authorized for the purpose of finding out the name of a third person who will be a witness. ” The order appealed from should he modified by providing that the examination should he had concerning the matters relevant to the issues as set forth in the affidavit of the plaintiff, verified July 17, 1913, except in so far as it is sought to obtain the names and residences of the persons present upon the two occasions specified other than William D. Corson, and as so modified, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant. Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott and Hotchkiss, JJ., concurred. Order modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant. Order to be settled on notice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Income Properties, Ltd. V 1997 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety 
by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000792181
<NAME> ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. V
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              40
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       14
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                           3,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,343
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          4,767
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,698
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Social Security Administration Programs /
              - 9.10 Monthly Number of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) Participants

## Table 9.10: Monthly Number of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) Participants

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
### §2412. Prohibition on use of funds to induce out-of-State relocation of businesses

No funds provided under this chapter shall be used for the purpose of directly providing incentives or inducements to an employer to relocate a business enterprise from one State to another State if such relocation will result in a reduction in the number of jobs available in the State where the business enterprise is located before such incentives or inducements are offered.

(Pub. L. 88–210, title II, §222, formerly title III, §322, as added Pub. L. 109–270, §1(b), Aug. 12, 2006, 120 Stat. 745; renumbered title II, §222, Pub. L. 115–224, title II, §201(a)(5), (7), July 31, 2018, 132 Stat. 1621.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2412, Pub. L. 88–210, title III, §322, as added Pub. L. 105–332, §1(b), Oct. 31, 1998, 112 Stat. 3124, prohibited use of funds to induce out-of-State relocation of businesses, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 109–270.

Another prior section 2412, Pub. L. 88–210, title IV, §412, as added Pub. L. 101–392, title IV, §406(a), Sept. 25, 1990, 104 Stat. 812, authorized grants for development, production, and distribution of instructional telecommunications materials and services, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 105–332.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–224 effective July 1, 2019, see section 4 of Pub. L. 115–224, set out as a note under section 2301 of this title.
(No. 74-CC-44

#### Dean Business Equipment Company, Inc., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Secretary of State, Respondent.

*Opinion filed October 2, 1973.*

Dean Business Equip. Co., Inc., Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
Exhibit 12(b)

FORM 10-Q

PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP.

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

PURSUANT TO THE
SUPPORT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND PACCAR

(Millions of Dollars)



|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|---------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | ----- | ---- | - | -----
|                                   |  | Six Months EndedJune 30
|                                   |  | 2009                    |       | 2008
|FIXED CHARGES                      |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|Interest expense                   |  | $                       | 68.7  |      | $ | 84.4 
|Facility and equipment rental      |  |                         | 1.1   |      |   | 1.1  
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                |  | $                       | 69.8  |      | $ | 85.5 
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|EARNINGS                           |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|Income before taxes                |  | $                       | 22.6  |      | $ | 42.5 
|Depreciation                       |  |                         | 57.9  |      |   | 48.4 
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|                                   |  |                         | 80.5  |      |   | 90.9 
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|FIXED CHARGES                      |  |                         | 69.8  |      |   | 85.5 
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|EARNINGS AS DEFINED                |  | $                       | 150.3 |      | $ | 176.4
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES |  |                         | 2.15X |      |   | 2.06X
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |
###### Editorial Note on Part 555

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 555 appear by T.D. ATF-487, 68 FR 3748, Jan. 24, 2003.

#### § 555.47 Insufficient fee.

If an application is filed with an insufficient fee, the application and fee submitted will be returned to the applicant.

(18 U.S.C. 847 (84 Stat. 959); 18 U.S.C. 926 (82 Stat. 1226))

[T.D. ATF-200, 50 FR 10498, Mar. 15, 1985]
Exhibit 99.3




                       GE CAPITAL MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.
             OFFICERS' ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE - SERIES 1997-3


         The undersigned,  Vice Presidents of GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc.
(the "Servicer"), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the Series
1997-3 REMIC Multi-Class  Mortgage  Pass-Through  Certificates (the "Agreement")
entered into by GE Capital Mortgage Services,  Inc., as Seller and Servicer, and
State Street Bank and Trust Company,  as Trustee,  which  Agreement  requires an
annual  statement of  compliance  to be made to the Trustee by an officer of the
Servicer, hereby state that:

     (i)  a review  of the  activities  of the  Servicer  during  the  preceding
          calendar year and of its performance under the Agreement has been made
          under the undersigned officers' supervision; and

     (ii) to the  best of the  undersigned  officers'  knowledge,  based on such
          review,  the Servicer has  fulfilled  all of its material  obligations
          under  the  Agreement  throughout  such  year,  except as set forth on
          Exhibit A hereto.

Capitalized  terms used  herein but not  defined  herein  shall have the meaning
given to them in the Agreement.


Dated:            March 25, 1998




By:      /s/ Gregory A. Gibson
------------------------------
         Gregory A. Gibson
         Vice President


By:      /s/ Karen Pickett
--------------------------
         Karen Pickett
         Vice President



<PAGE>



                                    EXHIBIT A


         Flood Insurance.  There may be instances in which mortgage loans in the
CompanyOs   servicing  portfolio  which  did  not  require  flood  insurance  at
origination  were  subsequently  included  within  special flood hazard areas as
designated by the Federal  Emergency  Management  Agency and flood  insurance on
such mortgage loans may not yet be in place. The Company,  however, has arranged
for back-up flood insurance  coverage in the event of a flood loss relating to a
mortgaged  property  located in a special  flood  hazard  area.  The  Company is
continuing  a  remapping  effort  which  will  identify  mortgage  loans  in its
servicing  portfolio  which  may  now be (but  which  were  not at  origination)
included in special flood hazard  areas.  The Company is not aware of any losses
associated with the lack of flood insurance coverage on such mortgage loans.
§ 10.610 What is a review by the Director? The FECA specifies that an award for or against payment of compensation may be reviewed at any time on the Director's own motion. Such review may be made without regard to whether there is new evidence or information. If the Director determines that a review of the award is warranted (including, but not limited to circumstances indicating a mistake of fact or law or changed conditions), the Director (at any time and on the basis of existing evidence) may modify, rescind, decrease or increase compensation previously awarded, or award compensation previously denied. A review on the Director's own motion is not subject to a request or petition and none shall be entertained. ( a ) The decision whether or not to review an award under this section is solely within the discretion of the Director. The Director's exercise of this discretion is not subject to review by the ECAB, nor can it be the subject of a reconsideration or hearing request.
( b ) Where the Director reviews an award on his or her own motion, any resulting decision is subject as appropriate to reconsideration, a hearing and/or appeal to the ECAB. Jurisdiction on review or on appeal to ECAB is limited to a review of the merits of the resulting decision. The Director's determination to review the award is not reviewable.