alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LAFAYETTE TRUST CO. v. BEGGS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 26, 1914.)

1. Banks and Banking (§ 226*)—Actions—Pleading—Insolvency.

An allegation that the superintendent of banks was in possession of the property, business, and assets of a bank “for the purpose of liquidating its affairs, in accordance with section 19 of the Banking Law of the state of New York” (Consol. Laws, c. 2), justified an inference of insolvency.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent. Dig. §§ 867-870; Dec. Dig. § 226.*]

2. Banks and Banking (§ 229*)—Insolvency—Judgment after Possession by Superintendent of Bank—Lien.

A judgment recovered against a bank after the superintendent of banks has taken possession thereof, pursuant to the Banking Law (Consol. Laws, c. 2), is not a lien on the property of the bank.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent. Dig. §§ 875, 876; Dec. Dig. § 229.*]

Action by the Lafayette Trust Company against James Beggs. Submitted on agreed facts. Judgment for plaintiff.

*415Argued before JENKS, P. J., and BURR, RICH, STAPLETON, and PUTNAM, JJ.

Frank M. Patterson, of New York City (John B. Loughborough, of Auburn, on the brief), for plaintiff.

Charles T. Green, of New York City, for defendant.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

[1] The parties concede that, if it appeared that plaintiff was an insolvent bank, a judgment in its favor would be justified. Northern Bank of New York v. Drury, 152 App. Div. 64, 136 N. Y. Supp. 608. The statement that since November 30, 1908, the superintendent of banks has been in possession of the property, business, and assets of the plaintiff, and is now in possession of the same, “for the purpose of liquidating its affairs, in accordance with section 19 of the Banking Law of the state of New York,” would justify an inference of insolvency.

[2] But in any event the reasoning of the Drury Case is equally applicable to an insolvent and a delinquent corporation. ■ Unless the deed tendered by the superintendent of banks in behalf of plaintiff would convey to defendant a good title, free from the lien of the judgments referred to in the submission of this controversy, it would be difficult to give full force and effect to that provision of the Banking Law authorizing him, upon obtaining an order of approval of the Supreme Court, to sell all the real property of such corporation on such terms as the court may direct. Laws of 1892, c. 689, § 18, as amended Laws of 1908, c. 143; Laws of 1909, c. 10 (Consol. Laws, c. 2) § 19, as amended Laws of 1910, c. 452.

There should be judgment for plaintiff, directing that defendant perform his contract of purchase, without costs.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 03087**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 03087\03087_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03087\03087_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 03087\03087_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 03087\03087_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03087\03087_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03087\03087_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03087\03087_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03087\03087_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

03087\Certification Statement Plant ID 03087.pdf Plant certification statement x 03087\RE EPA Steam Electric Questionnaire Follow-up 03087.rtf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

03087\Supplemental Documents\(A5-2) Wateree Station Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03087\Supplemental Documents\(A5-3) Wateree WBD.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03087\Supplemental Documents\(C2-31 and C3-36) Wateree Fly and Bottom Ash Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03087\Supplemental Documents\(D3-1) Wateree Pond Diagrams.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03087\Supplemental Documents\(D6-3 Pond-2) thalle final invoice.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Exhibit 10.1

                  Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation

All  non-employee  directors  of our  board of  directors  are each paid fees of
$1,275 per month. Attendance at a board committee meeting by a committee member:
$375 per meeting for the  non-management  chairman of each board  committee  and
$325 for the other non-management directors.
SCWC-12-0000095 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

VIHN ALKIRE-CLEMEN, Petitioner/Claimant-Appellant,

vs. CASTLE MEDICAL CENTER, Respondent/Employer-Appellee, Self-insured, and CRAWFORD AND COMPANY, Respondent/Insurance Adjuster-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-12-0000095; CASE NO. AB 2003-121(S) (2-02-09980)) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Petitioner/Claimant-Appellant’s Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed on July 20, 2013, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, August 19, 2013. Vihn Alkire-Clemen petitioner pro se /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0000095 19-AUG-2013 10:59 AM
#### In the Matter of Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent, v Holly D. Shaw et al., Respondents, and Hertz Corporation, Appellant.

Resettled judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on or about March 23, 1979, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by McCooe, J., at Special Term. Petitioner-respondent shall recover of respondent-appellant $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur — Birns, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.
#### Louis Eck et al., Appellants, v Aggressive Industries Corporation et al., Respondents. (And a Similar Title.)

In two actions to foreclose mortgages in which the defendants counterclaimed for release of certain property from the mortgage liens, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of two orders of the County Court, Dutchess County, both dated January 3, 1980, as granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment releasing the described property from the mortgage liens. Appeals dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. Since the motions involved herein were for summary judgment, we are empowered to search the record (see *Southern Assoc. v United Brands Co.,*67 AD2d 199, 204; *647
      *Yanarella v McClane,*16 AD2d 982). We find that subsequent to January 3, 1980 (the date of the orders on appeal) the mortgages were foreclosed and the debts satisfied. Accordingly, the mortgages were extinguished and plaintiffs have no basis upon which to challenge the release of the subject property from the mortgage liens (cf. *Whitestone Sav. & Loan Assn. v Allstate Ins. Co.,*34 AD2d 787, affd 28 NY2d 332). Titone, J. P., Lazer, Gulotta and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:94cr5004/LAC

ALPHONSE GAINER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on December 9, 2005

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT DENYING HABEAS RELIEF

PURSUANT TO FRCvP 60(B)(6) BASED ON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE 

Filed byDEFENDANT PRO SE on11/21/05 Doc.# 113

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 12th day of

January, 2006, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b)

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 5:94-cr-05004-LC-MD Document 115 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:20-mj-278

BRIAN KOLFAGE

_____________________________/

ORDER TO APPEAR

The Defendant appeared before this Court for his initial appearance on an arrest

warrant and indictment from the Southern District of New York. The Defendant is not

requesting court-appointed counsel. The Defendant waived an identity hearing. The

government did not move for detention. 

The Defendant is released from custody on conditions as set forth in the separately

issued conditions of release and ordered to appear in the Southern District of New York

(the “Charging District”), to answer a indictment in case number 20-cr-412. The time to

appear in that court had not yet been set as of the time of Defendant’s initial appearance. 

Therefore, the Defendant must appear when notified to do so.

Dated: August 20, 2020

s/ Hope Thai Cannon

Hope Thai Cannon

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:20-mj-00278-HTC Document 4 Filed 08/20/20 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2501 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2501

                   For the relief of Manuel Bartsch.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 4, 2006

  Mr. DeWine introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Manuel Bartsch.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MANUEL BARTSCH.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Manuel 
Bartsch shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1159) or for 
adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Manuel Bartsch enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall 
be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Manuel Bartsch, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1253(a)) or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(e)).
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Manuel 
Bartsch shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
Cite as 2015 Ark. 47



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-14-1089

DERRICK ROBERTS PETITIONER V. HONORABLE LARRY CHANDLER, CIRCUIT JUDGE RESPONDENT Opinion Delivered February 12, 2015 PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS [COLUMBIA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 14CR-09-113]
PETITION MOOT.

PER CURIAM Now before us is a pro se petition for writ of mandamus filed here on December 17, 2014, by petitioner Derrick Roberts. On January 14, 2014, petitioner filed in the Columbia County Circuit Court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis. In the mandamus petition, petitioner seeks to have Circuit Judge Larry Chandler enter a final order on the coram-nobis petition. On December 23, 2014, Judge Chandler timely filed a response to the petition in whichhe stated that he was retiring from the bench on December 31, 2014, at which time the coramnobis petition would be reassigned. Because the respondent, as of the date of this opinion, is no longer responsible for acting on petitioner’s pending pleading, this mandamus action is moot. Nevertheless, we take this opportunity to note that petitioner’s coram-nobis petition has been pending for more than one year. The reassignment process, if it has not already been completed, should be carried out promptly so that action can be taken on the pleading. The prompt resolution of all matters before a court is vital to the administration of justice. McNichols v. Elmore , 2014 Ark. 133 (per curiam).Cite as 2015 Ark. 47

Petition moot. Derrick Roberts , pro se petitioner. Dustin McDaniel

, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane , Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2
# L_2013302EN.01001601.xml

| 13.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 302/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 302/16

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1130/2013

of 7 November 2013

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Maccheroncini di Campofilone (PGI)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Maccheroncini di Campofilone’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Maccheroncini di Campofilone’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Maccheroncini di Campofilone’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Maccheroncini di Campofilone’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 November 2013.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 78, 16.3.2013, p. 5.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products and foodstuffs listed in Annex I(I) to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012:

Class 2.7.   Pasta

ITALY

Maccheroncini di Campofilone (PGI)

---
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.390 Licensing as a RBIC. ( a ) *Eligibility criteria for licensing as a RBIC.* Each selected Applicant must meet the following conditions before it is eligible to be licensed as a RBIC: ( 1 ) Raise the specific amount of Regulatory Capital that the Applicant had projected in its application that it would raise (see § 4290.210 for additional information).
( 2 ) Raise $500,000 in Leverageable Capital as required by § 4290.210;
( 3 ) Complete and submit to the Agency all legal and other documentation concerning the RBIC, including but not limited to its Articles and updated financial information concerning the RBIC in order to qualify for a Leverage commitment; and
( 4 ) Enter into a Participation Agreement with the Agency.
( b ) *Licensing as a RBIC.* If the selected Applicant has satisfactorily met all the conditions specified in paragraph (a) of this section, as determined within the sole discretion of the Agency, then the Administrator of RBS and the Administrator on behalf of SBA will license the Applicant as a RBIC.
( c ) *Failure to meet eligibility criteria for licensing.* Each selected Applicant that does not meet the eligibility criteria for licensing described in paragraph (a) of this section, within a time period specified by the Agency, will not be licensed as a RBIC. Failure to meet any of those conditions, including but not limited to failure to raise the projected Regulatory Capital within the required time period, will cause the Applicant's selection to lapse. The Agency will not restore the selection of such an Applicant after the expiration of that time period. After the expiration of that time period, an Applicant that is not licensed as a RBIC must cease to represent itself as a participant or potential participant in the RBIC program.
( d ) *Effect of a RBIC license.* The Participation Agreement executed by the Agency with each Applicant licensed as a RBIC will include the following: ( 1 ) Approval to operate as a RBIC under the Act;
( 2 ) A commitment of Leverage; and
( 3 ) An Operational Assistance grant award.
[69 FR 32204, June 8, 2004, as amended at 77 FR 4885, Feb. 1, 2012; 85 FR 16523, Mar. 24, 2020]
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 1:20cv190-RH-GRJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:20cv190-RH-GRJ

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, ECF No. 4. No objections have been filed. 

The report and recommendation addresses multiple lawsuits all filed by the 

plaintiff and all lacking an arguable basis in law or fact. The report and 

recommendation concludes this case and others should be dismissed. This order 

accepts the report and recommendation and adopts it as the court’s opinion on the 

issue of dismissal.

The report and recommendation also concludes that, as a sanction, 

conditions should be imposed on the plaintiff’s ability to file further lawsuits. This 

Case 1:20-cv-00190-RH-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/22/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 1:20cv190-RH-GRJ

order does not impose a sanction but instead leaves the issue of sanctions to the 

district judge presiding over the first-filed case, No. 1:20cv181. 

IT IS ORDERED:

The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The complaint is dismissed under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on September 22, 2020.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00190-RH-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/22/20 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2214 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2214

        To extend the suspension of duty on reduced vat blue 43.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2006

  Mr. DeMint introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To extend the suspension of duty on reduced vat blue 43.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDUCED VAT BLUE 43.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.03.04 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to reduced vat blue 43) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
2006-0720.

#### Dyer v. Jeffreys.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus of Carl M. Dyer. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
§ 301.32-10 Treatments. Regulated articles may be treated in accordance with part 305 of this chapter to neutralize fruit flies. The following treatments also may be used for the regulated articles indicated: ( a ) *Soil within the dripline of plants that are producing or have produced regulated articles listed § 301.32(a) or (b) .* The following soil treatments may be used: Apply diazinon at the rate of 5 pounds active ingredient per acre to the soil within the dripline with sufficient water to wet the soil to at least a depth of 0.5 inch. Both immersion and pour-on treatment procedures are also acceptable.
( b ) *Premises.* Fields, groves, or areas that are located within a quarantined area but outside the infested core area and that produce regulated articles may receive regular treatments with either malathion or spinosad bait spray as an alternative to treating fruits and vegetables as provided in part 305 of this chapter. These treatments must take place at 6- to 10-day intervals, starting a sufficient time before harvest (but not less than 30 days before harvest) to allow for development of fruit fly egg and larvae. Determination of the time period must be based on the day degrees model for the specific fruit fly. Once treatment has begun, it must continue through the harvest period. The malathion bait spray treatment must be applied by aircraft or ground equipment at a rate of 2.4 oz of technical grade malathion and 9.6 oz of protein hydrolysate per acre. The spinosad bait spray treatment must be applied by aircraft or ground equipment at a rate of 0.01 oz of a USDA-approved spinosad formulation and 48 oz of protein hydrolysate per acre. For ground applications, the mixture may be diluted with water to improve coverage.
[73 FR 32432, June 9, 2008, as amended at 75 FR 4240, Jan. 26, 2010]