alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.6
CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL APPEARING IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY [*****] HAS BEEN OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE 24b-2 PROMULGATED UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED



SIXTH AMENDMENT TO LOAN ORIGINATION AGREEMENT 


THIS SIXTH AMENDMENT TO LOAN ORIGINATION AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of September 5, 2018 (the “Effective Date”) by and between GreenSky, LLC (f/k/a GreenSky Trade Credit, LLC), a Georgia limited liability company (“Servicer”), and Synovus Bank, a Georgia state-chartered bank (“Lender”).  Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Origination Agreement (as defined herein).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Lender and Servicer have previously entered into that certain Origination Agreement dated as of August 4, 2015, as amended (the “Origination Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, Lender and Servicer desire to amend the Origination Agreement as set forth herein; 
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Lender and Servicer hereby agree as follows:
1.    Effective as of the Effective Date, the Origination Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
a.    Section 2.01(a)(i) of the Origination Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is inserted in lieu thereof:
“(i)    Subject to the terms and conditions hereof, Lender will fund newly originated Loans for the Program Sponsor’s customers identified by Servicer that meet the Underwriting Criteria up to a limit of $[*****] ($[*****].00) in aggregate outstanding principal balances at any time (the “Commitment Amount”); provided, however, that, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Lender, [*****].  The Commitment Amount may be increased in accordance with the mutual agreement of Lender and Servicer as evidenced by a written agreement.  Loans shall be funded at 100% of par of the Loan.”
2.    Except as expressly amended hereby, the Origination Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
3.    This Amendment may be executed and delivered by Lender and Servicer in facsimile or PDF format and in any number of separate counterparts, all of which, when delivered, shall together constitute one and the same document.







CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL APPEARING IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY [*****] HAS BEEN OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE 24b-2 PROMULGATED UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


SERVICER:


GREENSKY, LLC




By:     /s/ Gerald R. Benjamin            
(Signature)


Name:    Gerald R. Benjamin            
(Print Name)


Title:    Vice Chairman                




    






LENDER:


SYNOVUS BANK




By:     /s/ Christopher Pyle            
(Signature)


Name:    Christopher Pyle            
(Print Name)


Title:    Group Executive
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3758 

To prohibit the payment of death gratuities to the surviving heirs of deceased 

Members of Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 16, 2015 

Mr. COOPER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To prohibit the payment of death gratuities to the surviving 

heirs of deceased Members of Congress. 

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 ‘‘Congressional Death 

5 Benefit Elimination Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING PAYMENT OF GRATUITIES TO SUR7 VIVORS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. 

8 (a) PROHIBITION.—No payment may be made from 

9 the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives, 

10 the contingent fund of the Senate, or any other approVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:21 Oct 16, 2015 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3758.IH H3758

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3758 IH

1 priated funds for a death gratuity payment to the widow, 

2 widower, or heirs-at-law of any Member of Congress who 

3 dies after the commencement of the Congress to which the 

4 Member has been elected. 

5 (b) NO EFFECT ON OTHER PAYMENTS TO SUR6 VIVORS.—Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to 

7 prohibit or affect the payment to any individual of any 

8 unpaid balance or salary or other sums due to a Member 

9 of Congress who dies after the commencement of the Con10 gress to which the Member has been elected. 

11 SEC. 3. DEFINITION. 

12 For purposes of this Act, a ‘‘Member of Congress’’ 

13 means a Senator or a Representative in, or Delegate or 

14 Resident Commissioner to, the Congress. 

15 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

16 This Act shall apply with respect to any death occur17 ring after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Cynthia LARSEN, aka Cynthia Perez, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-50025.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 14, 2006.*

Filed July 20, 2006.

*553Becky S. Walker, Esq., Wesley L. Hsu, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Edward M. Robinson, Esq., Law Offices of Edward M. Robinson, Torrance, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Cynthia Larsen appeals from her jury trial conviction and sentence for unauthorized impairment of a protected computer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(ii). She argues that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that she caused more than a $5,000 loss to her victims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s denial of Larsen’s motion for a judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence. *See, e.g., United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir.2002). We will not disturb the jury’s verdict if “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); *see United States v. Johnson,*297 F.3d 845, 868 (9th Cir.2002).

Loss is “any reasonable cost to any victim.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(ll). It includes the time that the victim’s salaried employees spend responding to the unauthorized intrusion. *United States v. Middleton,*231 F.3d 1207, 1214 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that the time a company’s salaried employees spent responding to the offense multiplied by their hourly wages was sufficient to prove a loss exceeding $5,000).

The government presented evidence that Larsen caused two companies to lose almost $10,000 in direct expenses, computer support expenses, software updates, and employee labor, From this evidence a rational jury could have concluded that Larsen caused more than a $5,000 loss to her victims. We reject Larsen’s argument that the government exaggerated the loss by inflating the amount of time employees spent addressing the problem and by including routine computer maintenance ex*554penses in the loss calculation because that argument turns on the credibility of the government’s witnesses, the exclusive province of the jury. *See United States v. Goode,*814 F.2d 1353, 1355 (9th Cir.1987) (stating that jury’s exclusive province is to determine witness credibility).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### §2296c. Border control assistance

#### (a) Purpose of assistance

The purpose of assistance under this section includes the assistance of the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia to secure their borders and implement effective controls necessary to prevent the trafficking of illegal narcotics and the proliferation of technology and materials related to weapons of mass destruction (as defined in section 2332a(c)(2) of title 18), and to contain and inhibit transnational organized criminal activities.

#### (b) Authorization for assistance

To carry out the purpose of subsection (a), the President is authorized to provide assistance to the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia to support the activities described in subsection (c).

#### (c) Activities supported

Activities that may be supported by assistance under subsection (b) include assisting those countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia in developing capabilities to maintain national border guards, coast guard, and customs controls.

(Pub. L. 87–195, pt. I, §499C, as added Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(2) [title V, §596(b)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1535, 1501A–124.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Delegation of Functions

For delegation of functions of President under this section, see Ex. Ord. No. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 F.R. 56673, as amended, set out as a note under section 2381 of this title.
Exhibit 32.2

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 ALCO, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the  period ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Yip Kam Ming, Chief Financial Officer and director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

> 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/ Yip Kam Ming



Yip Kam Ming,

 Chief Financial Officer and director

May 15, 2006
§ 404.1910 Person qualifies under more than one totalization agreement. ( a ) An agreement may not provide for combining periods of coverage under more than two social security systems.
( b ) If a person qualifies under more than one agreement, the person will receive benefits from the U.S. only under the agreement affording the most favorable treatment.
( c ) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the agreement that affords the most favorable treatment for purposes of paragraph (b) of this section will be determined as follows: ( 1 ) If benefit amounts are the same under all such agreements, benefits will be paid only under the agreement which affords the earliest month of entitlement.
( 2 ) If benefit amounts and the month of entitlement are the same under all such agreements, benefits will be paid only under the agreement under which all information necessary to pay such benefits is first available.
( 3 ) If benefit amounts under all such agreements are not the same, benefits will be paid only under the agreement under which the highest benefit is payable. However, benefits may be paid under an agreement under which a lower benefit is payable for months prior to the month of first entitlement to such higher benefit.
[44 FR 42964, July 23, 1979, as amended at 49 FR 29775, July 24, 1984]
#### County of Seneca, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 26299.)

Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and McCurn, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22171-22172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9604]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax 
Assistance Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer 
Income Tax Assistance Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, June 14, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Powers at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-
423-7977.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax 
Assistance Project Committee will be held Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 2 
p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to 
make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due 
to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must 
be made with Donna Powers. For more information please contact Ms. 
Powers at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or write TAP Office, 1000 
South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or contact us 
at the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS Issues.


[[Page 22172]]


    Dated: April 15, 2011.
Shawn Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2011-9604 Filed 4-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

October 17, 2014

Red Mesa Chapter, Navajo Nation Reservation

P.O. Box 422

Montezuma Creek, UT 84534

ATTN: Minne John

Subject: Request to retain public documents at the Red Mesa Chapter for public inspection

Dear Ms. John:

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency sent you a package containing a number of documents

regarding the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation

near the city ofAneth, San Juan County, Utah. Two of these documents contained an error, and need

to be replaced. Please replace the following documents in the package previously sent to you with

the enclosed documents:

1. PUBLIC INFORMATION SHEET

2. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACT REPORT & FACT SHEET

Your assistance with this matter is greatly appreciated. Feel free to contact me at (415) 947-4156 or

ke11y.shaheerah~epa.gov if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Shaheerah e ly, Environmental Engineer

Pennits Office

Air Division

Enclosures
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY ELEV

 1,901.68

 1,900.89

 1,900.80

 1,900.78

 1,900.84

 1,901.00

 1,900.70

 1,900.85

 1,901.16

 1,901.51

 1,900.95

 1,900.59

 1,901.02

 1,900.98

 1,901.08

 1,901.29

 1,901.04

 1,900.93

 1,901.09

 1,901.33

 1,901.27

 1,901.03

 1,901.00

 1,901.11

 1,900.91

 1,900.96

 1,900.87

 1,901.62

 14,420

 13,830

 13,764

 13,749

 13,793

 13,911

 13,690

 13,801

 14,031

 14,292

 13,874

 13,609

 13,926

 13,896

 13,971

 14,128

 13,941

 13,859

 13,978

 14,158

 14,113

 13,933

 13,911

 13,993

 13,845

 13,882

 13,815

 14,375

STORAGE

-7

-590

-66

-15

+44

+118

-221

+111

+230

+261

-418

-265

+317

-30

+75

+157

-187

-82

+119

+180

-45

-180

-22

+82

-148

+37

-67

+560

CHANGE

301

3

267

292

322

360

446

356

1,178

1,622

1,384

1,490

1,724

1,493

340

379

605

259

360

391

277

210

290

341

226

319

268

584

INFLOW

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 58

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 42

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

 20

SPILL

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

 200

OUTLETS

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 0

 0

 2

 0

 2

 0

 0

 1

 2

 0

 2

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 1

 0

 1

 0

 2

 2

C.F.S.

 .04

 .02

 .01

 .01

 .02

 .05

 .00

 .00

 .11

 .00

 .08

 .00

 .00

 .06

 .08

 .03

 .02

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .04

 .03

 .02

 .03

 .02

 .09

 .09

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2001 LEWISTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: March 26, 2001

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS CARR

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -52 16,087 2,218 5,780 402 18 .86

ACRE-FEET -52 31,909 4,399 11,465 797 36

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

(1) OUTLET RELEASE INCLUDES THE CONTINUOUS FISH RELEASE OF 75 C.F.S.

(2) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM PAN AT TRINITY RIVER HATCHERY

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL POWER 4,399

TOTAL RIVER 16,661 31,926

 14,427

 15,265

RIVER

JUDGE FRANCIS CARR POWERPLANT

TOTAL RELEASE

JUDGE (2)

(1) POWERPLANT

 4

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 257

 0

 760

 1,190

 1,293

 1,324

 1,264

 1,207

 0

 0

 397

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 7,696

 15,265

Table 6
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-51124

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PRISCILIANO ALMENDAREZ-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Priciliano

Almendarez-Rodriguez,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-00-CR-1045-ALL-DB

- - - - - - - - - -

June 15, 2001

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Prisciliano Almendarez-Rodriguez appeals his sentence

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal re-entry after

deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Almendarez argues

that his sentence should not have exceeded the two-year maximum

sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Almendarez acknowledges that

his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for
No. 00-51124

- 2 -

Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). 

Almendarez’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, 523

U.S. at 235. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### § 362.4 Delegation of authority.

The Deputy General Counsel of the Board is authorized to settle any claim filed under this part.

(45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(5))

[45 FR 57709, Aug. 29, 1980, as amended at 48 FR 51448, Nov. 9, 1983]
# C_2012003EN.01001101.xml

| 6.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/11

---

Notice concerning undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China: change of the address of a company

2012/C 3/07

The undertakings offered in the framework of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of citric acid originating in the People's Republic of China were accepted by Commission Decision 2008/899/EC (1).

1

Weifang Ensign, a company located in the People's Republic of China, whose undertaking was accepted by Decision 2008/899/EC, has informed the Commission that on 17 June 2011 it has changed its address to Changshen Street No 1567, Changle, Weifang, Shandong Province, PRC.

The company has argued that the change of address does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the terms of the undertaking accepted under its previous address of The West End, Limin Road, Changle City, Shandong Province, PRC.

The Commission has examined the information provided and has concluded that the change of address in no way affects the findings of Decision 2008/899/EC. Therefore, the reference, in Article 1 of Decision 2008/899/EC to:

Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Ltd, The West End, Limin Road, Changle City, Shandong Province, PRC

should be read as:

Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Ltd, Changshen Street No 1567, Changle, Weifang, Shandong Province, PRC

The TARIC additional code A882 previously attributed to Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Ltd, The West End, Limin Road, Changle City, Shandong Province, PRC shall apply to Weifang Ensign Industry Co. Ltd, Changshen Street No 1567, Changle, Weifang, Shandong Province, PRC.

---

(1)  OJ L 323, 3.12.2008, p. 62.

1

---
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) General Dynamics ) ) Under Contract No. N00024-98-C-8503 et al. ) APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60679

D. Joe Smith, Esq. Matthew L. Haws, Esq. Edward Jackson, Esq. Grant B. Schweikert, Esq.

Jenner & Block LLP Washington, DC Ronald J. Borro, Esq.

Navy ChiefTrial Attorney Robyn L. Hamady, Esq.

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 25 April 2017

Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60679, Appeal ofGeneral Dynamics, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
### §1631d. Acquittance and discharge of obligation

Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of property made to the President or his designee pursuant to this subchapter, or any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued under this subchapter, shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same; and no person shall be held liable in any court for or in respect of any such payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery made in good faith in pursuance of and in reliance on the provisions of this subchapter, or of any rule, regulation, instruction, or direction issued thereunder.

(Mar. 10, 1950, ch. 54, title II, §205, as added Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 645, §3, 69 Stat. 563.)
#### Charles D. Cole v. Arlington State Bank et al.

Filed April 21, 1898.

No. 8039.

Review Without Bill of Exceptions. Assignments of error relating to rulings on the admission of evidence will be disregarded on review in absence of a properly authenticated bill of exceptions.

Error from the district court of Washington county. Tried below before Key sor, J.

*Affirmed.*

*Bradley & De Lamatre,*for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendants in error.

Noryal, J.

Charles D. Cole instituted two' actions of replevin to' recover certain chattels, one being against the Arlington State Bank, and the other against the Blair State Bank. The causes were consolidated and tried as one action. The verdict was for the defendants, and from the judgment entered thereon plaintiff has prosecuted this proceeding.

*633The three assignments argued in the brief filed relate to the rulings of the court below on the admission of evidence, and they cannot be considered, since there is no bill of exceptions included in the transcript. *(Sweeney*v. *Ramge,*46 Neb. 919; *Reed v. Rice,*48 Neb. 586; *McKenna v. Dietrich,*48 Neb. 483; *Wood v. Gerhold,*47 Neb. 397; *White v. Smith,*47 Neb. 625; *Reynolds v. McCandless,*50 Neb. 225; *Stuart v. Burcham,*50 Neb. 823; *Douglas Smith,*50 Neb. 899.) The judgment is

Affirmed.