alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Hans Jochen Warncke, Appellant, v. W. Cecil Johnston, as Director of Dannemora State Hospital, Respondent.

Appeal from an order denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus for failure to comply with the provisions of article 77 of the Civil Practice Act. Subdivision 7 of section 1234 of the Civil Practice Act provides in part that the petition shall set forth any previous applications made for a writ and information as to what court or courts or judge or judges *849made, and the determinations thereof. The Attorney-General sets forth in his brief that a prior application had been made on October 7, 1959 in the Clinton County Supreme Court and denied and an order entered accordingly in the Clerk’s office on October 13, 1959. The petitioner in his brief does not deny these facts but contends that he is entitled to have his writ determined. Order unanimously affirmed.
#### LEVY et al. v. ZASULY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Landlord and' Tenant—Eviction—Appeal.

On a verified precept in proceedings by a landlord to recover possession and for nonpayment of rents the tenant filed a verified answer admitting the hire, but denying the indebtedness, alleging that the landlord had failed to carry out conditions; but there was no evidence of the last defense, and as to the indebtedness the landlord testified for and the tenant against it. *Held,*that the final order in favor of the landlord would not be disturbed on appeal.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fifth District.

Action by Max Levy and another against Louis Zasuly. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ. .

Henry M. Heymann, for appellant.

L. and A. U. Zinke, for respondents. .

MacLEAN, J.

Upon the return of a verified precept in proceedings to recover possession of the premises at No. 349 Madison avenue, and for nonpayment of the rents for the months of March and April of the current year, the tenant filed a verified answer admitting the hire, but denying the indebtedness, and alleging that the landlords had failed to carry out the conditions of the agreement. Respecting the last defense, no evidence was given. As to the indebtedness, the landlords testified in support of the allegations in their petition, and the defendant in contradiction. The final order rendered by the learned justice should not be disturbed.

Final order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. All concur.
Exhibit
      32(c)







**CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 on Form 10-Q of Carolina Power & Light
      Company (the “Company”) for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Fred N.
      Day IV, President and Chief Executive Officer 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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











/s/
      Fred N. Day IV


Fred
      N.
      Day IV


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


August
      9,
      2006








This
      certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
      for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
#### 18.111 Oral requests for proposals.

Oral requests for proposals are authorized under certain conditions. (See 15.203(f).)

[71 FR 38248, July 5, 2006. Redesignated at 72 FR 46344, Aug. 17, 2007]
Exhibit 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-36004) of Public Storage,  Inc.,  formerly Storage
Equities,  Inc.,  pertaining  to the 1990 Stock  Option Plan,  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No.  33-55541)  pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan,
the Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No.  333-13463)  pertaining to the 1996
Stock Option and Incentive  Plan,  the  Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No.
333-75327)  pertaining  to the  1994  Share  Incentive  Plan,  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-50270) pertaining to the PS 401(k)/Profit Sharing
Plan, the Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-52400)  pertaining to the
2000   Non-Executive/Non-Director   Stock  Option  and   Incentive   Plan,   the
Registration   Statement  on  Form  S-3  (No.  333-81041)  and  in  the  related
prospectus,  the Registration  Statement on Form S-4 (No.  333-86899) and in the
related prospectus,  the Registration  Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-84126) and
in the  related  prospectus,  in the  Registration  Statement  on Form  S-3 (No.
333-101425) and in the related Prospectus and the Registration Statement on Form
S-4 (No. 333-103190), and in the related prospectus of our report dated February
20, 2004 with respect to the consolidated  financial  statements and schedule of
Public  Storage,  Inc.  included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for 2003 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                                              ERNST & YOUNG LLP

March 12, 2004
Los Angeles, California
#### 219.602 Procedures.

When making a nonresponsibility determination for a small business concern, follow the procedures at PGI 219.602.

[72 FR 20762, Apr. 26, 2007]
Case: 1:12-cv-01422 Document #: 37-1 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:158 Case: 1:12-cv-01422 Document #: 41-1 Filed: 01/23/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:188
Case: 1:12-cv-01422 Document #: 37-1 Filed: 01/15/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:159 Case: 1:12-cv-01422 Document #: 41-1 Filed: 01/23/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:189
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

James F. Holderman Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 11 C 9308 (MDL 2303) DATE 2/14/2012

CASE

TITLE

In Re: Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent Litigation

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

THIS ORDER APPLIES TO ALL CASES. Pretrial Order No. 1: The cases transferred to this Court along

with case numbers 11 C 1638 and 11 C 6478, which were previously pending before this Court, are

consolidated for pretrial purpose. Any “tag-along” actions later filed, removed to, or transferred to this Court

will be consolidated automatically with this action, without the need for a motion. All further filings should

be made in 11 C 9308 as the established lead case for MDL 2303; the individual case number should also be

displayed on the documents filed, if the document only pertains to an individual case number. 

Notices mailed

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

AMM

11C9308 In Re: Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent Litigation Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 19 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:25
#### In the Matter of the Detectives’ Endowment Association of the Police Department of the City of New York, Inc., Appellant, v Arvid Anderson et al., Respondents, and City of New York, Intervenor-Respondent.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on August 7, 1978, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Hughes, J., at Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Birns, J. P., Evans, Fein, Sullivan and Lupiano, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                             1,169,417
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   0
<PP&E>                             28,144,448
<DEPRECIATION>                     10,510,777
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     18,976,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              0
<BONDS>                            8,434,843
<COMMON>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                         10,028,397
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       18,976,657
<SALES>                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   3,745,473
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      1,581,543
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   1,061,566
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 748,229
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    0
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                0
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       354,135
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      3.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                      3.98
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 12 (Thursday, January 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6366-6367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01233]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air 
Act

    On January 14, 2021, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed 
Consent

[[Page 6367]]

Decree with the District Court of the Southern District of New York in 
a lawsuit entitled United States v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al., 
Civil Action No. 21-323.
    In this action the United States seeks, as provided under the Clean 
Air Act (``CAA''), civil penalties and injunctive relief from 
defendants in connection with violation of emission-defect reporting 
regulations promulgated at 40 CFR part 85, subpart T. The proposed 
Consent Decree resolves the United States' claims, requires defendants 
to pay $180 million, and imposes injunctive relief.
    The publication of this notice opens the public comment on the 
proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and 
should refer to United States v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al., 
Civil Action No. 21-323, D.J. Ref. 90-5-2-1-11477. All comments must be 
submitted no later than 30 days after the publication date of this 
notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         To submit comments:                     Send them to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By email............................  [email protected].
By mail.............................  Assistant Attorney General, U.S.
                                       DOJ--ENRD, P.O. Box 7611,
                                       Washington, DC 20044-7611.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be 
examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. We will provide a paper copy 
of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction 
costs. Please email your request and payment to: Consent Decree 
Library, U.S. DOJ-ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
    Please enclose a check or money order for $9.25 (25 cents per page 
reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.

Henry S. Friedman,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-01233 Filed 1-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
```
#### Seaboard Air-Line Railway *v.*Davis & Brandon.

February 28, 1913.

Action tor damages. Before Judge Conyers. Camden superior court. January 6, 1912.

*Bolling Whitfield,*for plaintiff in error. *R. D. Header,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

An action was brought against a railway company, based on the provisions of the Civil Code, §§ 2771 and 2772, which require common carriers, on application by the shipper, to trace freight which may have been lost, damaged, or destroyed, and to inform the applicant in writing, within thirty days, of the time, place, and manner of the loss or destruction, -and the names of the parties and their official positions, if any, by whom such facts can be established, and which provide that on failure to do so the carrier shall be liable for the value of the freight lost, damaged, or destroyed, in the same1 manner and to the same extent'as if such loss, damage, or destruction occurred on its own line. *Held,*that while the liability imposed upon a railway company for failing to comply with the provisions of such code sections is in the nature of a penalty, as damages are prescribed for such failure *(McCall*v. *Central Railway Company,*120 *Ga.*602, 48 S. E. 157), a recovery is limited to the value of the freight lost, damaged, or destroyed; and the right of action therefor is expressly confined to the shipper, consignee, or their assigns. It follows that such suit is not a qui tarn action for the recovery of a penalty in its strict aiid technical sense, and therefore is not subject, as to limitation of time within which it must be brought, to the provisions of the Civil Code, § 4370, viz.: “All actions by informers, to recover any fine, forfeiture, or penalty, shall be commenced within one year from the time the defendant’s liability thereto was discovered, or by reasonable diligence could have been discovered.” 25 Cyc. 1055. It does not appear from the declaration that the action was barred. The court did not err in overruling the general demurrer to the petition, nor in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### 1609.470 Notification of Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility.

(FAR) 48 CFR, part 9, subpart 9.4 is supplemented as set out in the certification required in 1609.471 by converting the FAR “offeror's” certification at (FAR) 48 CFR 52.209-5 into a carrier's certification. This change reflects the FEHBP's statutory exemption from competitive bidding (5 U.S.C. 8902), which obviates the issuance of solicitations.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         244,268
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 335,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          244,268
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,896
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   335,164
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,829,963
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,780,326
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,637
<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>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY BARNES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

ROUTH CRABTREE OLSEN PC; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35418 

D.C. No. 3:15-cv-01001-BR 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 

Timothy Barnes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

his action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) 

and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Barnes’ request for oral 

argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

FILED

APR 17 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-35418 

Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040-41 (9th 

Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Barnes’ claims under the FDCPA and 

section 646.639 of the Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act because the alleged 

communications were not attempts to collect a debt as defined by the FDCPA. See

Ho v. ReconTrust Co., NA, 858 F.3d 568, 572 (9th Cir. 2017) (foreclosure actions 

are not attempts to collect “debt” as that term is generally defined by the FDCPA); 

Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining 

that “while the FDCPA regulates security interest enforcement activity, it does so 

only through Section 1692f(6),” and that “[a]s for the remaining FDCPA 

provisions, ‘debt collection’ refers only to the collection of a money debt”); see 

also Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.643 (compliance with the FDCPA demonstrates 

compliance with ORS 646.639).

The district court properly dismissed Barnes’ civil conspiracy claim because 

Barnes failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. See 

Granewich v. Harding, 985 P.2d 788, 792-93 (Or. 1999) (civil conspiracy is not a 

separate theory of recovery; rather it is a way in which a person may become 

jointly liable for another’s unlawful conduct).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Barnes’ motion for 

reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) because Barnes
3 16-35418 

failed to establish any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., 

Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of 

review and grounds for reconsideration).

We do not consider matters not properly raised before the district court, or 

matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See 

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
### §1444f. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–127, title I, §171(b)(2)(C), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 938

Section, act Oct. 31, 1949, ch. 792, title I, §105B, as added Nov. 28, 1990, Pub. L. 101–624, title IV, §401(3), 104 Stat. 3401; amended Nov. 5, 1990, Pub. L. 101–508, title I, §§1101(b), 1102(b), 1103(b), 104 Stat. 1388–1, 1388–2; Dec. 13, 1991, Pub. L. 102–237, title I, §§102(c), 103(a), 105, 106(c), 108, 113(4), (5), 114(b)(1), 105 Stat. 1822, 1823, 1825, 1828, 1837, 1839; Aug. 10, 1993, Pub. L. 103–66, title I, §1103, 107 Stat. 315; May 6, 1994, Pub. L. 103–247, §1(b), 108 Stat. 618; Oct. 13, 1994, Pub. L. 103–354, title I, §119(a)(4), 108 Stat. 3207, related to loans, payments, and acreage reduction programs for 1991 through 1995 crops of feed grains.
### Request for Information Planehook Aviation Services LLC (FAA-2015-4858) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Hook: This letter is to inform you that the following inform ation is missing from your peti tion (Docket No. FAA-2015-4858). This information is necessary for the Federal Av iation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

z Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Op erations Manual (MPTOM) wh ich is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closedset filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your inte ntion by the requested response date listed below.
Please submit the additional informati on (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, plea se also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comm ent tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we mu st receive the information described above by January 22, 2016. If we do not receive the information, we wi ll close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions, please feelfree to contact me at (202) 267-2999. FAA Office of Rulemaking Sent : Friday , January 08, 2016 8:42 AM To: planehook@hotmail.com