alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
39630.

#### BURTON v. GILDER.

Decided September 5, 1962.

*495
      *Ed C. Bouvette, Paul T. O’Connor, Kelley Quillian,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. Harvey Armistead,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

As stated by this court in the recent case of *Stamps Tire Co. v. Powers,*104 Ga. App. 860 (123 SE2d 203), the failure of the defendant’s counsel to appear in court upon the trial of a suit against the defendant where such absence is not induced by any acts or conduct of the plaintiff or the court, is unmixed with any sort of providential cause, and is *496without the leave of the court, constitutes no legal reason for setting aside a jury verdict and judgment in such suit.

Where as in the instant case, however, the defendant’s motion is predicated upon an error in the preparation and publication of the official court calendar, as required by law (Ga. L. 1960, pp. 2167, 2168), which error results in the omission of the name of the defendant’s counsel from said published calendar, and the substitution of the name of another attorney in lieu thereof, it cannot be said that said motion is without sufficient legal reason to authorize the trial judge to set aside a jury verdict and judgment. See *Perry v. Maryland Cas. Co.,*102 Ga. App. 475 (116 SE2d 620), in which it was held that the construction placed upon its own rules by a court of original jurisdiction is conclusive where it does not clearly appear that such construction is •wrong- and that an injustice has been done. The trial court in the present case held that the parties appearing in said court and their counsel had the right to rely on the official publication of the court calendar as being correct, and found that the non-appearance of the defendant and counsel in this case was induced by an error in said publication. This appears to be a reasonable conclusion and a fair construction of the statute requiring publication of the calendar, and is not in conflict with the decision of this court in *Watts v. Jackson,*22 Ga. App. 31 (95 SE 324) (in which it was held that the trial court did not err in holding that the failure of the defendant to appear, personally or by counsel, in court on the call of the trial of his case because the case had been incorrectly stated in a newspaper in which the court calendar was printed, was not sufficient reason to set aside the verdict of the jury and judgment entered thereon) for the reason that in the *Watts*case there was no showing that the publication of the court calendar was an official one, required by law.

The trial court did not err therefore in overruling the plaintiff’s demurrer to the defendant’s motion and in sustaining said motion to set aside said verdict and judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
§ 884.5210 Pressure wedge for the reduction of cesarean delivery. ( a ) *Identification.* A pressure wedge for the reduction of cesarean delivery is a prescription device that provides external mechanical support to the perianal region during the labor and vaginal delivery process. External mechanical support of the perianal region is intended to help reduce the occurrence of cesarean delivery.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) The patient contacting materials must be evaluated to be biocompatible.
( 2 ) Nonclinical performance data must demonstrate that the device will not break when subjected to the forces it will be exposed to during labor.
( 3 ) Performance data must validate the sterility of the device.
( 4 ) Performance data must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating continued sterility and package integrity over the labeled shelf life.
( 5 ) Clinical performance data must be provided that characterizes the rate of skin/tissue trauma.
( 6 ) The labeling must include: ( i ) Specific instructions regarding the proper placement and use of the device.
( ii ) A shelf life.
[82 FR 61448, Dec. 28, 2017]
(logo)****CURCIO

+COHEN

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

Managing Member

Park Bridge Lender ServicesLLC

New York, NY

 

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’sReport on Assessment of 2016 Compliance by Park Bridge Lender Services LLC withRegulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), thatPark Bridge Lender Services LLC (the “Company”) complied with theservicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission’s Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December31, 2016, excluding those criteria noted as not applicable (N/A) within ExhibitB to Management’s Report. The transactions covered by this report areonly those transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trustadvisor or operating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the“Platform”) identified in Management’s Report. ReferenceExhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by thisexamination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance withthe applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinionon management’s assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of a selectedsample of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whetherthe Company performed those selected activities in compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria during the specified period. Our procedures werelimited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by theCompany during the period covered by this report. Our examination was notdesigned to detect material noncompliance arising from errors that may haveoccurred prior to or subsequent to our tests, that may have affected theCompany’s servicing activities during the period covered by this report.We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’scompliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’sassertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicableservicing criteria identified in Exhibit B to Management’s Report withrespect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A to Management’sReport as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, for the Platform, isfairly stated in all material aspects.

 

 

/s/ Curcio & Cohen,CPA’s, P.C.

 

 

New York, NY

February 2, 2017

 

 

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTSPC 7 PENN PLAZA, SUITE 1500 NEW YORK NY 10001

TEL: 212 557-9800  FAX: 212557 9819   WEBSITE: WWW.CWCCPAFIRM.COM
**OFFICE OF**  **THE A~ORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

I

### '2. If quo8tlaJ HO. 1 la uuvomd 'IO,' tan, ln l m t o w lu o h o a a t r a o t

b y t b l a b o w 4 o ft r l m 

### two, 8t 

### vhlsh tlmo such It68k 

### holder ir preold4, Md thrw trwtow tot0 'lo,' ud thmo true t o o a r o t e ëx. 0 f w lu o h 

## aontwat, s o d t h a n ii l 

### ald pro s l d l m@

o ff l a w

a u t o t h a



### de01 dLîii t o t0 in f a wlr o ft & w a t r wt vlt h t h l a 

### oorporat o n,

l r s u o h o o nt m t wlld tî



### “ ‘ 008truta lJJ

tholr MtM ml8JJlatod to 

### lak,a.idawtoa&Ihemyaotb8iailueaaedbftln int o r wt, w a h l oentwot 

### a0 wdo 18 r~olatlve cu the lpl.rltaEdbtter Of otm ln,arkdls a@lamt ~plbll0

polloy.* **VodowtbnwtbfulltaatakPwetu.** 

### Inoonuatloafiththt3Qumtlona pa&klntha letter 

### ariql3, x342, you rt0to th0t 

### tb board Nmbnr %vJJa no rtook 

### or l4ltorort 

### b t h a l t o r a l 0 , p l m a o fbJul u s r .í u a kll o n t h8t

z n O m n eQ, 

### t1oa*1ththem0 qwatluM Joowaltto kaouullotherthe n~tlonwanthotru0twadthoovnwofthebu85.MuoIl~ vltl a tw lw h O a o t r M~.s l a oo y o u d oJmta d r l a e

u a 

### to t he

o o a t r w y,

v o a r e ued t o a 0 mm o ln 

### m0Mot1on ulth y o u r g w8tlo lwo fmy l3th t t he trwtoo r w oLve8 n o lw

## l i o n, b o l uu , 00 a n y o t hm r i o R or Oo8@uJm8tl~, 

## u p d

b un o poo u nl w y

lJAtw o r t

uha t m o v or

in t hB

### oontrwt, t a m my la h 

### lntwoot, l

### lthw d lw a t or l md l r wt, UedA r o n d w t h a



### ooJJtr8at

### -Q21. Yo mustaloo us- ln oonnootlon with mob quomtlonr, tat the trurteola net 

### an offloer 

### of tho b u o l a eu l

### otabllahment 

### 0~06 by his father or iathor-in-lov.



### me Pelat1om0hlpitolm la aot ruSZlolentto 

### iavalidata the 

### ooatreot. Thoroloro, ln vlov or tbbo rut0 

### bororo us 

### aact cha ruounpthru wo!woamdo, pauu roopectfall~84vised chat tho board of truot.uoouy ontoe 

### into a ccntract for rohool 

### rterlola vtth tbr father 

### or i8ther-la-law 

### of on0 of tlw truet800 tr 

### l

o a h t m t00hu DO r 

### UJllwykltoreot, 

### olthm alreot

### lyor MAreot~,latha ooa sot, 

### 8ad:hio l8true wen though 

### the trustee10 u euplm intb 

### bus&em l 

### otabli- 

### owned
w RIO sww OF r8aJai-br. ckppiniarrMO. 

### O-2856.

hwo anawred thb pwmtloa In the no&ire, the moomA *turntiara 

## 00ba in your lotcor of nay l&h do00 

### not aall for on mover. 

### u~Tl8&to8siplml&tlmcthinOpFPi~~~o1J Umltod to t he

t r o t l lt u8tl o a

d l o o l o a o d

l a y o u r lOttoP

a n d to 

### t h o ueuaptlona 

### m & o . V -Y *e P -0 A%TWEYOI3pEkAL~~
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0001367

29-OCT-2014

08:11 AM
Document Headings

                    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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [LLMTC03000-L10200000-PK0000] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory                               ( print page 39099)                            Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Dakotas Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below.                     

# DATES:

The meeting will be held September 2, 2009. The meeting will begin at 8 a.m. on September 2, 2009. The public comment period will begin at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, September 2, 2009. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the BLM North Dakota Field Office, 99 23rd Avenue West, Dickinson, North Dakota 58601. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in North and South Dakota. All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below. The Council will hear updates to ongoing planning efforts and assist in evaluating areas of ecological importance. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lonny Bagley, Field Manager, North Dakota Field Office, 99 23rd Avenue West, Dickinson, North Dakota 701.227.7700, or Marian Atkins, Field Manager, South Dakota Field Office, 310 Roundup St., Belle Fourche, South Dakota, 605.892.7000. 

Dated: July 30, 2009. 

Lonny R. Bagley, 

Field Manager.

[FR Doc. E9-18700 Filed 8-4-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 20, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 134846 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134846 COA: 262673 Barry CC: 02-100200-FH TIMMY ALLEN ROSENBERG, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 19, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1213 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.

December 20, 2007

Clerk
39518.

#### WYNE v. THE STATE.

Decided June 26, 1962

Rehearing denied July 9, 1962.

*James H. Fort,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. B. Skipworth, Jr., Solicitor,*contra.

Frankum, Judge.

The purported brief of evidence in the instant case includes objections to evidence, arguments on objections, colloquies between counsel and the court, rulings of the court, motions and lengthy arguments in support thereof. Such matters have no place in a brief of evidence.

Since there has been no bona fide attempt to comply with *Code Ann.*§ 70-305, and none of the grounds of the motion for a new trial can be passed upon without reference to the purported brief of evidence, this court will affirm the judgment of the court overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial. *Woods v. State,*102 Ga. App. 762 (117 SE2d 884); *Railey v. State,*103 Ga. App. 409 (119 SE2d 287). Cf. *Cartwright v. Commercial Credit &c. Corp.,*103 Ga. App. 480 (119 SE2d 606).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*

Jordan, Judge,

concurring specially. I concur in the opinion as written since the brief of evidence is subject to the criticisms made. However, *Code Ann.*§ 70-305 is for the benefit of the court and should be used, in my opinion, only where an undue burden is placed on the court by such irrelevant matter, and even less strictly applied in criminal cases.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0 155 IN THE MATTER OF: C.L., A Youth . **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 18 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 12 2020

08/12/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0155
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of President and Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as Amended

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended(18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted), Bing Yeh, the President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. (the "Company"), herebycertifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

- The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the"Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
- The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. 

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand heretoas of the 13th day of November, 2003.

/s/ Bing Yeh		Bing YehPresident and Chief Executive Officer 

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, has been provided to SiliconStorage Technology, Inc. and will be retained by Silicon Storage Technology,Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is notdeemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended(whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 12

- 00085

- CR

JAMIE LEE COKER, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 32982

- A

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jamie Lee Coker appeals from his conviction of intoxication manslaughter and sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment

. Coker has filed a single brief, in which he raises issues common to all of his appeals. 1 He argues that (1) the waiver of his right to a jury trial and t he stipulations of evidence entered by him were involuntary , (2) the trial court erred in failing to reinstate the right to a jury trial and in allowing the use of his stipulations of evidence , and (3) the trial court erred in admitting “various State’s ex hibits” over objections to their admissibility, including hearsay, Confrontation Clause, Fifth Amendment, and Texas Code of Criminal Appeals Artic le 33.22 objections.
We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on Coker’s appeal in cause number 06

- 12

- 00084

- CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that error has
not been shown in this case.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice
Date Submitted: June 18, 2013 Date Decided: June 19, 2013
Do Not Publish

1 Coker also appeals a conviction of intoxication manslaughter resulting in a sentence of t wenty years’ imprisonment in our cause number 06

- 12

- 0008 4

- CR , and three separate convictions for intox ication assault, each resulting in sentences of ten years’ imprisonment, in our cause numbers 06

- 12

- 00086

- CR, 06

- 12

- 00087

- CR and 06

- 12

- 0008 8

- CR.
§ 1.852-5 Earnings and profits of a regulated investment company. ( a ) Any regulated investment company, whether or not such company meets the requirements of section 852(a) and paragraphs (a)(1) (i) and (ii) of § 1.852-1, shall apply paragraph (b) of this section in computing its earnings and profits for a taxable year beginning after February 28, 1958. However, for a taxable year of a regulated investment company beginning before March 1, 1958, paragraph (b) of this section shall apply only if the regulated investment company meets the requirements of section 852(a) and paragraphs (a)(1) (i) and (ii) of § 1.852-1.
( b ) In the determination of the earnings and profits of a regulated investment company, section 852(c) provides that such earnings and profits for any taxable year (but not the accumulated earnings and profits) shall not be reduced by any amount which is not allowable as a deduction in computing its taxable income for the taxable year. Thus, if a corporation would have had earnings and profits of $500,000 for the taxable year except for the fact that it had a net capital loss of $100,000, which amount was not deductible in determining its taxable income, its earnings and profits for that year if it is a regulated investment company would be $500,000. If the regulated investment company had no accumulated earnings and profits at the beginning of the taxable year, in determining its accumulated earnings and profits as of the beginning of the following taxable year, the earnings and profits for the taxable year to be considered in such computation would amount to $400,000 assuming that there had been no distribution from such earnings and profits. If distributions had been made in the taxable year in the amount of the earnings and profits then available for distribution, $500,000, the corporation would have as of the beginning of the following taxable year neither accumulated earnings and profits nor a deficit in accumulated earnings and profits, and would begin such year with its paid-in capital reduced by $100,000, an amount equal to the excess of the $500,000 distributed over the $400,000 accumulated earnings and profits which would otherwise have been carried into the following taxable year.
#### § 1.871-3 Residence of alien seamen.

In order to determine whether an alien seaman is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax, it is necessary to decide whether the presumption of nonresidence (as prescribed by paragraph (b) of § 1.871-4) is overcome by facts showing that he has established a residence in the United States. Residence may be established on a vessel regularly engaged in coastwise trade, but the mere fact that a sailor makes his home on a vessel which is flying the United States flag and is engaged in foreign trade is not sufficient to establish residence in the United States, even though the vessel, while carrying on foreign trade, touches at American ports. An alien seaman may acquire an actual residence in the United States within the rules laid down in § 1.871-4, although the nature of his calling requires him to be absent for a long period from the place where his residence is established. An alien seaman may acquire such a residence at a sailors' boarding house or hotel, but such a claim should be carefully scrutinized in order to make sure that such residence is bona fide. The filing of Form 1078 or taking out first citizenship papers is proof of residence in the United States from the time the form is filed or the papers taken out, unless rebutted by other evidence showing an intention to be a transient.