alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

PNC Bank, National Association, successor in interest
via merger to National City Bank, successor in interest
via merger to Mid America Bank, FSB, successor in
interest via merger to Fidelity Federal Savings Bank,

Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:12 cv 01357

Kil N. Lee a/k/a Kil Nyo Lee; James Shin and Susan Assigned Judge: Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
Shin,

Magistrate Judge: Arlander Keys

Defendants. |

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, PNC Bank, N.A., successor in interest via merger to National City Bank,
successor in interest via merger to Mid America Bank, FSB, successor in interest via merger to Fidelity Federal
Savings Bank, by its attorneys CROWLEY & LAMB, P.C., and moves the Court for the entry of a Judgment

of Foreclosure and Sale in its favor and against the Defendant(s):

Kil N. Lee a/k/a Kil Nyo Lee, and as grounds thereof state:
As appears from the Affidavit of Plaintiff placed on file in support of this Motion, and from the

pleadings and admissions on file, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the Plaintiff is entitled to

a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale in this case as a matter of law.

PNC Bank, N.A., successor in interest via merger to
National City Bank, successor in interest via merger to Mid i
America Bank, FSB, successor in interest via merger to
Fidelity Federal Savings Bank

By: /s/Shannon C. McKinley
One of Its Attorneys

Patrick D. Lamb (ADRC#3128062)
Shannon McKinley (ARDC#6298914)
CROWLEY & LAMB, P.C.
221 N, LaSalle Street, Suite 1550
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 670-6900 |
plamb @crowleylamb.com |
smckinley @crowleylamb.com
**EXHIBIT
      32**









CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.


SECTION
      1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





This
      certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purposes of
      satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002 and may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Access Pharmaceuticals,
      Inc. and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon its request.





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Act of
      2002
      (18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted, the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), Stephen R. Seiler,
      President and Chief Executive Officer of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
      "Company"), and Stephen B. Thompson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
      of the Company, each hereby certifies that to his knowledge the Annual Report
      on
      Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 of the Company filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully
      complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company for the period specified.





Signed
      at
      the City of Dallas, in the State of Texas, this __st day of March,
      2007.







/s/ Stephen
              R. Seiler
            
            /s/ Stephen
              B. ThompsonStephen R. Seiler
            Stephen B. ThompsonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
            Chief Financial
              Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6216

RAYMOND IDEMUDIA AIGBEKAEN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar , Chief District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 02890

- JKB )

Submitted : January 18, 2024 Decided: February 16, 2024

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Raymond Idemudia Aigbekaen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6216 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Raymond Idemudia Aigbekaen appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) for the return of property seized during his criminal investigation. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s order. Aigbekaen v. United States , No. 1:21

- cv - 02890

- JKB (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument w ould not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6216 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Busbee *et al.,*administrators, *v.*Chapman.

November 15, 1912.

Hill, J.

Where a vendor agrees to accept, as part consideration for realty sold, the erection by the vendee of certain walls at a named valuation, which agreement the vendee fails or refuses to perform, the vendor can not maintain a suit to recover the balance of the consideration as purchase-money of the land, but is relegated to an action for damages for a breach of the contract by the vendee. *Butler*v. *Sams,*138 *Ga.*748 (75 S. E. 1127); Chamberlain *v.*Wolf, 112 Iowa, 176 (83 N. W. 893); Westchester & P. R. R. *v.*Broomall, (Pa.), 3 Atl. 444; 2 Warvelle on Vendors (2d ed.), § 939; 2 Sutherland on Damages, § 576.

(a)' Accordingly, where a petition was filed by the vendor against the vendee for the agreed value of the walls to be erected by the latter, as the balance of the purchase-price of the land, the petition was subject to the general. demurrer filed, and the court erred in not sustaining it.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*20. Complaint. Before Judge Whipple. Dooly superior court. November 6, 1911.

*Joseph II. Hall*and *Busbee & Busbee,*for plaintiffs in error.

*J. T. Hill*and *J. W. Dennard,*contra.
EXHIBIT 10.33c


                         THIRD AMENDMENT TO 8% TERM NOTE

      THIRD AMENDMENT, dated as of March 20, 2006, TO 8% TERM NOTE, dated April
5, 2005, as amended on September 30 and December 19, 2005, made by and between
Delta Mutual, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with its principal offices located
at 111 North Branch Street, Sellersville, PA 18960 (the "Borrower") and
_______________________ (the "Holder"). Capitalized terms used herein and not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the
Original Note.

      WHEREAS, the Borrower and the Holder are parties to that certain 8% Term
Note, dated April 5, 2005, as amended on September 30 and December 19, 2005,
(the "Original Note") pursuant to which the Borrower has borrowed the amount of
$________ from the Holder;

      WHEREAS, the Original Note provides that the Maturity Date shall be April
3, 2006; and

      WHEREAS, the Borrower and the Holder have agreed to extend the Maturity
Date and to amend Section 1.4 of the Original Note in order to provide the
Borrower with additional time to secure financing; and

      WHEREAS, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Original Note,
the Borrower and the Holder hereby approve the amendment of the Original Note as
set forth herein.

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants
contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

      5. By their respective execution of this Agreement, the Borrower and the
Holder agree that Section 1.4 of the Original Note is hereby amended to read in
its entirety as follows: "Maturity Date" shall mean June 5, 2006.

      6. Except as expressly provided herein, the Original Note shall continue
in full force and effect.


SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower and the Holder have executed this Third
Amendment as of the date first written above.


                  DELTA MUTUAL INC.




            By: _______________________          By: ___________________________
               Peter F. Russo
               President & CEO


                                       56
#### Debbie Lewis, Appellant, v Kra Konan et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[835 NYS2d 40]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered December 22, 2005, which granted the motion by defendant Konan and the cross motion by defendants Gomez and Americana for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously modified, on the law, the cross motion denied and the complaint reinstated as against Gomez and Americana, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as plaintiff testified that the Gomez vehicle, in which she was a passenger, first struck the car driven by Konan before it was struck in the rear by the car driven by defendant Sebastien, there are contradictory versions as to how the accident occurred, thus precluding summary disposition *(see DeRosa v Valentino,*14 AD3d 448 [2005]). On the other hand, even under plaintiffs version (which is not supported by either Konan or Gomez) that the Konan vehicle struck a fourth car that had swerved in front of it, there is no evidence suggesting that Konan had been driving so fast that he would have been unable to respond to the exigent circumstances in a non-negligent manner. Although Gomez admitted striking the Konan *320vehicle, he did not testify that Konan swerved into his lane. Under such circumstances, the complaint against Konan was properly dismissed, since there is nothing in the record to support an allegation that he was negligent. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.
#### Santina Murine, Appellant, v City of Utica, Respondent.

[834 NYS2d 761]—

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Anthony F. Shaheen, J.), entered April 5, 2006 in a personal injury action. The order granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion in part and reinstating the complaint insofar as it *1238alleges that defendant was negligent in failing to provide proper illumination and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries she sustained when she allegedly “tripped in a crater” in a paved driveway in a park owned by defendant, City of Utica (City). The accident occurred when plaintiff was leaving the park following a City-sponsored Fourth of July fireworks display. Supreme Court properly granted that part of the City’s motion seeking dismissal of the complaint insofar as it alleges that plaintiffs injuries were the result of the dangerous condition of the driveway. Plaintiff failed to allege compliance with the City’s prior written notice requirement *(see*City of Utica Charter § 1.016; Second Class Cities Law § 244), and the City established that it did not receive prior written notice of the allegedly dangerous condition of the driveway *(see Brooks v Village of Horseheads,*14 AD3d 756, 757 [2005]). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, that requirement applies to a driveway located within a City-owned park *(see Morzello v Village of Briarcliff Manor,*260 AD2d 611 [1999]; *Kadlecik v Village of Endicott,*174 AD2d 923, 924 [1991]; *see also Bielecki v City of New York,*14 AD3d 301 [2005]; *Englehardt v Town of Hemp-stead,*141 AD2d 601, 602 [1988], *lv denied*72 NY2d 808 [1988]). The prior written notice requirement does not apply however, to the allegation of plaintiff that her injuries resulted from the City’s negligent failure to provide proper illumination in the area of the driveway following the fireworks display *(see Cracas v Zisko,*204 AD2d 382, 383 [1994]; *see also Gagnon v City of Saratoga Springs,*14 AD3d 845, 846-847 [2005]). The court therefore erred in granting the City’s motion in its entirety, and we modify the order accordingly. Present—Gorski, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Green and Pine, JJ.
#### 17.201 [Reserved]
1404.7004 Procedures. ( a ) The CO shall direct the contractor, in the technical instructions, to provide two copies of each publication or report produced under a contract to: U.S. Department of the Interior, Departmental Library, 1849 C Street, NW., MS-2258, Main Interior Bldg., Washington, DC 20240.
( b ) A transmittal letter shall accompany the copies and identify the sender and the publication(s). The bibliographic information required by 481 DM 1.3B(4) shall be also included with the submission of all translations.
Exhibit 31.2
**Certifications**
I, Jon D. Greenwood, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of American BuildingControl, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Dated: April 9, 2004 By  /s/ Jon D. Greenwood    Jon D. Greenwood    Interim-Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 3160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00576]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel; Interventions to Prevent Electronic Nicotine 
Delivery Systems (ENDS) Use Among Adolescents (R01--Clinical Trial 
Optional).
    Date: March 10, 2021.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug 
Abuse, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Yvonne Owens Ferguson, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Extramural Policy and Review, Division of 
Extramural Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, 301 
North Stonestreet Avenue, MSC 6021, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-
7371, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1d646b72737378337b786f7a686e72735d737475337a726b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e9909f8687878cc78f8c9b8e9c9a8687a9878081c78e869f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug 
Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist 
Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug 
Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 
93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 8, 2021.
Tyeshia M. Roberson,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-00576 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
4j~c\ ç~\\.~J~\

Cr’~c~ ~

c\€,~ ~ ~

\~ Sc~ ~r 1\1~ 2o~ ~ ?P ~ ~ ~ ~j~,y~e-~J 1~~ert~i C~(’~

~~€e ~c~ ~7r~ s/~-e~s

Q\ ~e -

~ ~ qj ~

~ ~ Q~LI~

~~~~ ~ ~

~ (c~ ~~

- ~

~ ~ r~y ~

- ~

~ ~ \~~?

— ~4 vers~& ~

o~ ~~ ~

~ ~ -

~ \~~(kr) jJ~~ -~~3 ~

~~b -~~‘)

c~~-\~ ~~•(- ~ ~

S~r~ ~ - ~ ~

~c p~2~G~ ~) ~

— ~ _~~JJ. ~

~ ~ftr~ 4 ~0r~M~ A3p~ ~

-y -

-‘- ~—J~___ fV~.)( S~—’\\N ~c-’~ - \r~’~~’~’ ~ ~ ~ ~
Annual Asphalt Pavement

Industry Survey on

Recycled Materials

and Warm-Mix Asphalt Usage:

2009—2013

Appendix B:

State-by-State Use of

Recycled Materials and Warm-Mix Asphalt

in Asphalt Pavement Mixtures
California

Reported Values Total Estimated Value

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 I 2013

!~“~ of HMAIWMA Produced Tons_(Millions) Tons_(Millions) —

Total 8.4 7.7 9.4 4.1 11.1 20.0 13.8 23.0 225 24.3

DOT 2.4 2.6 2.9 1.0 2.9 5.7 4.6 7.2 5. 6.3

OtherAgency 3.7 3.1 2.9 1.4 4.1 8.7 5.6 7.0 7. — 9.0

Commercial and Residential 2.4 2.0 3.6 1.7 4.1 5.6 3.6 8.8 9. 9.0

Companies/Branches Reporting 6 4 4 7

RAP Tons_(Millions) Tons_(Millions)

Accepted 1.0 0.9 1.2 0.4 2.1 2.4 1.6 2.9 2.0 4.6

Used in HMA/WMA 0.8 1.4 0.9 0.6 1.2 2.0 2.6 2.2 3.6 2.7

Used in Aggregate 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.5

Used in Cold Mix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 — .0 0.0

Used in Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 — .0 0.0

Landfilled 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 0.0

Average % Used in Mixes

Average %for DOT Mixes 11.7% 12.3% 9.6% 12.9% 14.3%

Average %forOtherAgency Mixes 11.3% 13.4% 7.0% 14.5% 15.0%

Average % for Commercial & Residential 17.4% 14.8% 13.2% 19.1% 17.2%

State Average All Mixes Based on % Reported 9.8% 18.8% 9.4% 15.9% 11.1%

for Different Sectors

State Average AN Mixes Based or~ RAP Tons 13.1% 13.4% 10.1% 16.0% 15.6%

% Companies/Branches Reporting Using RAP 100% 100% 75% 75% 100%

RAS Tons (Thousands)

Accepted 12.0 12.1 25.1 0.2 9.9

Used in HMA/WMA 0.0 1.0 2.9 2.0 8.9 0.0 1.8 7.2 11.1 19.5

Used in Aggregate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Used in Cold Mix 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Used in Other 12.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.4 19.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Landfilled 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Average % Used in Mixes

• Average % for DOT Mixes 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Average % for Other Agency Mixes 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.06% 0.00%

Average % for Commercial & Residential 0.00% 0.00% 0.08% 0.07% 0.22%

State Average All Mixes Based on RAS Tons 0 00°! 0 010/ 0 03°! 0 05°! 0 08°!

Used in HMA/WMA . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0

% Companies/Branches Accepting or Using RAS 17% 33% 75% 25% 43%

WMA % Total Production

DOT 1% 1% 0% 0% 3% 0.1 0.0

OtherAgency 0% 2% C ‘ 24% 12% 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.9 1.1

Commercial and Residential 1% 14% C 24% 13% 0.1 0.5 0.0 2.3 1.2

Total 0.2 0.6 0.0 4.2 2 5

. %of Market_____

ChemicalAdditive% 8% 2% 31% 0% 1%

Additive Foaming % 3% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Plant Foaming % 88% 96% 69% 100% 99%

Organic Additive % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

WMA Reporting Using 100% 83% 75% 75% 86%

NCR = No Companies Reporting * = Fewer than 3 companies reporting
#### 14.402 Opening of bids.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION

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 Chase General Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, Barry M. Yantis, President and Chief Executive Officer of Chase General Corporation, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Barry M. Yantis                  
|Barry M. Yantis                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|Treasurer and Chairman of the Board  
|                                     
|Dated: February 10, 2005             



19
2045.370 Providing Government property (in general). ( a ) Unless otherwise provided for in FAR 45.302-1(d), applicable to Government facilities with a unit cost of less than $10,000, a contractor may be provided Government property or allowed to purchase the property at Government expense if the contracting officer, with the advice of the agency property official determines that: ( 1 ) No practicable or economical alternative exists; e.g., acquisition from other sources, utilization of subcontractors, rental of property, or modification of program project requirements;
( 2 ) Furnishing Government property is likely to result in substantially lower costs to the Government for the items produced or services rendered when all costs involved (e.g., transportation, installation, modification, maintenance, etc.) are compared with the costs to the Government of the contractor's use of privately-owned property; and
( 3 ) The Government receives adequate consideration for providing the property.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Orsilini, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on June 25, 1976, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Lane, Markewich and Silverman, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Pease Oil Company et al., Petitioners, v. State Tax Commission, Respondent.

Motion to modify order entered May 20, 1963 denied, and proceeding dismissed. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ. [18 A D 2d 867, 1124.]