alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Fred W. Otte, Deceased. Carl R. Olson, as Executor of Fred W. Otte, Deceased, et al., Respondents; Salvatore T. Gambino, as Committee of the Person and Property of Bessie W. Otte, an Incompetent, Appellant.

In a proceeding to judicially settle the account of the executor under the will of Fred W. Otte, deceased, the committee of the testator’s incompetent wife appeals from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County, entered December 18, 1962 (see 36 Mise 2d 790),. as denied the application of the committee’s attorneys for payment from the decedent’s estate of the reasonable value of their services rendered in behalf of the committee; such denial being “ without prejudice to an appropriate application in a proper forum for the payment. [for such services] from the estate of the incompetent.” Decree, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts, with costs to the appellant committee and all other parties filing briefs, payable out of the estate; and application of the committee’s attorneys granted to the extent of awarding to .them, payable out of the incompetent’s wife’s share in the testator’s estate, the sum of $750 as compensation for services rendered by them in this proceeding. Findings of fact which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. On a prior appeal this court: (1) held that the sum of $4,000, set up in the executor’s account as.the sole property of the decedent, was to be “ treated as property belonging to [the decedent] husband and [the incompetent] wife as tenants in. common in equal shares;” (2) directed payment (to the committee) of the sum of $2,000 as the wife’s share thereof; and (3) remitted the matter to the Surrogate’s Court for the making of an application by the committee’s attorneys for the fixation of their fee *{Matter of Otte,*15 A D 2d 819; resettlement, reargument or other relief denied 16 A D 2d 801). In our opinion, the learned Surrogate rightly concluded that, in discretion, the application for compensation out of the general funds of the estate should be denied (see 36 Mise 2d 790). However, in view of the fact that, by the decision on the prior appeal, the committee for the incompetent wife was entitled to the sum of $2,000, payable by the estate, the Surrogate was empowered to grant an award - to the committee’s attorneys for their services out of the funds in the executor’s hands, belonging to the wife as a person interested in the estate (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, ■ § 231-a; 3 Warren’s Heaton, Surrogates’ Courts [6th ed..], § 295, par. 4, subd. [a], *895"p. 731). In our opinion, the Surrogate should have exercised such power. Under all the circumstances, a grant of $750 seems to us to be fair and reasonable compensation in view of the fact that counsel were not acting as volunteers and that their objections to the account were in accord with the recommendations contained in the report of a special guardian duly appointed by the Surrogate to protect her interests upon the accounting. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60149

LESLY GATHERIGHT, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

HALEY BARBOUR; JIM HOOD; BEN CREEKMORE; LON STALLINGS; 

HONEY USSERY; MICKEY MALLETTE; CALHOUN COUNTY 

MISSISSIPPI SHERIFF'S OFFICE; DEWAYNE WINTER; TRACY 

MCGUIRT, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:16-CV-3

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff Lesly Gatheright appeals the dismissal of his claims against 

several Mississippi state and county actors stemming from his arrest and 

indictment on two charges of felony bad check. We have carefully considered 

this appeal in light of the parties’ briefs and pertinent portions of the record. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 13, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60149 Document: 00514271138 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2017
No. 17-60149

2

Having done so, we find no error in the district court’s dismissal of the claims. 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the same reasons 

articulated by that court.

 Case: 17-60149 Document: 00514271138 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2017
"EXHIBIT 23"

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
International Bancshares Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-15655
on Form S-8 of International Bancshares Corporation of our report dated March
20, 1998 relating to the consolidated statements of condition of International
Bancshares Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and
the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997,
which report is incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1997 annual report
on Form 10-K of International Bancshares Corporation.

KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

San Antonio, Texas
March 20, 1998
Order filed May 10, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00200-CV

____________

ROBERT T. WALLACE, Appellant

V.

COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 152ND District Court 

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2007-03987

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed February 27, 2012. The clerk’s record 

has not been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record notified this court that 

appellants have not made complete payment for the record. On March 30, 2012, 

appellant filed a motion requesting additional time to pay for the record. This court 

granted appellant until May 1, 2012 to provide proof of payment for the record and to file 

the record. No record or proof of payment was filed. Therefore, the court issues the 

following order. 

Appellant is ordered to file the clerk’s record with the clerk of this court within 15 

days of the date of this order. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If appellants fail to file the 
2

clerk’s record in accordance with this order, the appeal will be dismissed. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 37.3(b).

PER CURIAM
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 19, 2018

N o. 04

- 18

- 00837

- CV

Debra BARRIENTOS

, Appellant

v.

HEB GROCERY COMPANY, L.P. , U.S Security Associates, Inc., Universal Protection Service, L.P. D/B/A/ Universal Protection Service; and G.T. Sirizzotti, LTD, Appellees

From the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- CI

- 08748

Honorable David A. Canales , Judge Presiding

ORDER

This appeal is DISMISSED . W e order that appellees recover all costs they incurred related to this appeal.

It is so ORDERED on December 19, 2018

.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of December, 2018

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:FAA-2010-1312; 2010-NM-220-AD
**UNITEDSTATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION**

**Washington****, D.C.****  20549**

** **

Form10-K

** **

[X]   ANNUALREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934      

** **

For thefiscal year ended December 31, 2008

** **

or

** **

[ ]   TRANSITIONREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

** **

For thetransition period _________to _________

** **

Commission file number0-10304

** **

**ANGELES PARTNERSX**

(Exactname of registrant as specified in its charter)

** **

** **

55Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina 29602

(Addressof principal executive offices)

** **

Registrant's telephonenumber, including area code  (864) 239-1000

** **

Securities registeredpursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

** **

None

** **

Securities registeredpursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

** **

Limited PartnershipUnits

(Titleof class)

** **

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of theSecurities Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

** **

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)of the Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days. Yes [X] No [ ]

 

Indicate by check mark ifdisclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (Section229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, tothe best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or informationstatements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or anyamendment to this Form 10-K. [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of“large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company”in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

** **

** **

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).Yes [ ] No [X]

** **

State the aggregate marketvalue of the voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by referenceto the price at which the partnership interests were sold, or the average bidand asked prices of such common equity as of the last business day of theregistrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter. No market exists forthe limited partnership interests of the Registrant, and, therefore, noaggregate market value can be determined.

** **

**DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE**

**None**
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60833

Summary Calendar

Jose Alfredo Tovar Zamarron, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A095 531 693

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jose Alfredo Tovar Zamarron, a native and citizen of Mexico, 

petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

denying his motion to reopen on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

The BIA held that the motion was number and time barred because this was 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 11, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60833 Document: 00516235812 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2022
No. 20-60833

2

Tovar Zamarron’s second motion to reopen and was filed several years after 

the entry of his final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i). 

Because it determined that Tovar Zamarron did not pursue his rights 

diligently, it held that he was not entitled to equitable tolling. See LugoResendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337, 344 (5th Cir. 2016). 

A denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed under “a highly deferential 

abuse-of-discretion standard.” Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955, 958 (5th 

Cir. 2019). Motions to reopen are disfavored, and the movant bears a heavy 

burden. Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 305 (5th Cir. 2017). 

In Flores-Moreno v. Barr, 971 F.3d 541, 545 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 

141 S. Ct. 1238 (2021), this court held under similar circumstances that the 

BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the petitioner failed to exercise

due diligence. Like the petitioner in Flores-Moreno, Tovar Zamarron filed his 

second motion to reopen through his current attorney several years after an 

unnamed attorney told him that he had no recourse. Flores-Moreno, 971 F.3d 

at 543. Tovar Zamarron’s affidavit attached to the motion neither provides 

dates of when he contacted his current attorney, nor does it describe what 

steps he was taking to pursue his claim between speaking to the unnamed

attorney and consulting with the nonprofit organization who referred him to 

his current attorney. See id. at 545. 

Thus, in light of the disfavored status of motions to reopen, the 

“highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard” under which we review 

them, and our holding in Flores-Moreno, 971 F.3d at 543-45, we hold that the 

BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Tovar Zamarron did not 

act diligently and was thus not entitled to equitable tolling of his motion to 

reopen. See Ramos-Portillo, 919 F.3d at 958; Gonzalez-Cantu, 866 F.3d at 305. 

Accordingly, Tovar Zamarron’s petition for review is DENIED. 

Case: 20-60833 Document: 00516235812 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2022
### §302. Method of apportionment and selection; issuance of land scrip

The land aforesaid, after being surveyed, shall be apportioned to the several States in sections or subdivisions of sections, not less than one-quarter of a section; and whenever there are public lands in a State subject to sale at private entry at $1.25 per acre, the quantity to which said State shall be entitled shall be selected from such lands within the limits of such State, and the Secretary of the Interior is directed to issue to each of the States in which there is not the quantity of public lands subject to sale at private entry at $1.25 per acre, to which said State may be entitled under the provisions of this subchapter, land scrip to the amount in acres for the deficiency of its distributive share; said scrip to be sold by said States and the proceeds thereof applied to the uses and purposes prescribed in said sections, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever: Provided, That in no case shall any State to which land scrip may thus be issued be allowed to locate the same within the limits of any other State, or of any Territory of the United States, but their assignees may thus locate said land scrip upon any of the unappropriated lands of the United States subject to sale at private entry at $1.25, or less, per acre: And provided further, That not more than one million acres shall be located by such assignees in any one of the States: And provided further, That no such location shall be made before July 2, 1863.

(July 2, 1862, ch. 130, §2, 12 Stat. 503.)
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-762]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: S&B Pharma LLC, dba: Norac Pharma has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before February 11, 2021. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before February 11, 2021.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on August 25, 2020, S&B Pharma LLC, dba: Norac Pharma, 405 South Motor Avenue, Azusa, California 91702, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substance
Drug code
Schedule4-Anilino-N-phenethyl-4-piperidine (ANPP)
8333
IITapentadol
9780
II
 The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in bulk for the manufacture of controlled substances for distribution to its customers. No other activity for these drug codes is authorized for this registration. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale. William T. McDermott, Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2021-00326 Filed 1-11-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
#### HILL v. TOWN OF CAPE CARTERET

No. 392P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 829

Plaintiffs pro se petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 of an unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, *Hill v. Town of Cape Carteret,*126 N.C.App. 829, 488 S.E.2d 853 (1997), is allowed for entry of the following order:

Pursuant to *Edwards v. West,*347 N.C. 351, 492 S.E. 2d 356 (1997) and *Hale v. Afro-American Arts International, Inc.,*335 N.C. 231, 436 S.E. 2d 588 (1993), the Court of Appeals is directed to hear and determine plaintiffs appeal.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 5th day of March, 1998.
Exhibit 23.2

LEE KEELING AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS



|                                                                                                                             |  |                                                                                                                                      
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|TULSA OFFICE First
Place Tower 15 East Fifth StreetSuite 3500
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-4350 (918)
587-5521Fax: (918) 587-2881 |  | HOUSTON OFFICE Kellog Brown and Root Tower 601 Jefferson Ave.Suite 3690 Houston, Texas 77002-7912
(713) 651-8006Fax: (281) 754-4934

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

As independent petroleum engineers, Lee Keeling and Associates, Inc. hereby consents to all references to our firm included in or made a part of this Amendment No. 2 (the Amendment) on
Form 10-K/A to the EXCO Resources, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 and to the use of our reserve report dated January 8, 2010 on the estimated proved oil and natural gas reserve quantities of EXCO
Resources, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries presented as of December 31, 2009 (the Report) in the Amendment and further consents to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-159930,
333-156086, 333-132551, 333-133481, and 333-146376) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-142361 and 333-145885) of EXCO Resources, Inc. of our Report and information from the Report.

/S/    LEE KEELING AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Tulsa, Oklahoma

January 24, 2011
Exhibit 32

 

**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 Annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 of BNP U.S. Funding L.L.C. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Martine Billeaud, President and Director of the Company, and Thomas Clyne, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company, each 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 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|                   |                                                                         |
|------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |                                                                         |
|                   | By _______________________

Martine Billeaud President and Director

   |
|                   |                                                                         |
|  

 

  | By _______________________

Thomas ClyneChief Financial Officer and Director |
| Date: March 31, 2006   |                                                                         |

 

 

 

 

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130011 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: 130011 COA: 256061 Oakland CC: 2003-190459-FH KALVIN LAMAR WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan , lv gtd 472 Mich 881 (2005).

t0320 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 27, 2006

Clerk