alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Crowe *v.*Crowe.

[No. 20,198.

Filed May 18, 1965.]

*Lewellyn H. Pratt,*of Bloomington, for appellant.

*226
      *Theodore PuehowsM,*of Hammond, for appellee.

Bierly, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Lake Superior Court, Room Two, Sitting at East Chicago, Indiana, ordering appellant to pay an increased amount of support for the minor child of the parties, along with attorney fees for the attorney for appellant, on a petition by appellee to modify a support order for said minor child, entered in said court on November 4,1953.

Acts of the General Assembly 1963, ch. 279, approved March 14, 1963, §1, page 424, the same being §4-214, Burns’ 1964 Supp., provides, in pertinent parts relative to this appeal, to-wit:

> “Hereafter all appeals in appealable cases in the following classes shall be taken directly to the Supreme Court of Indiana, as follows:

> “Fifteenth. All appeals from judgments in which an award is made concerning the permanent care and custody of a minor child or minor children.

> “All appealable cases, other than those herein mentioned, shall be taken to the Appellate Court of Indiana.”

A 1963 amendment added the fifteenth clause as set forth above.

While neither appellant nor appellee raised the question that the Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction of this appeal, this Court can take judicial notice of the question of jurisdiction of said appeal.

It is our opinion that this appeal falls within the phraseology of the fifteenth clause of §4-214, *supra,*and, therefore, the Appellate Court lacks jurisdiction.

Hence, it is our opinion that exclusive jurisdiction in this appeal rests in the Supreme Court and that the same should be transferred to the Supreme Court.

*227This appeal, therefore, is ordered transferred to the Supreme Court of Indiana.

And the Clerk of the Supreme and Appellate Courts is hereby directed to notify attorneys of record of this order.

Hunter, Mote and Smith, JJ., concur.

Note.—Reported in 207 N. E. 2d 220.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 337.15 General provisions.

As fiscal agents of the United States, Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to perform any necessary acts under this part. The Secretary of the Treasury may at any time or from time to time prescribe supplemental and amendatory regulations governing the matters covered by this part, notice of which shall be communicated promptly to the registered owners of the debentures.

[66 FR 56432, Nov. 8, 2001]
ALEUTIAN ISLANDS

UNITED STATES BATHYMETRIC MAP DERICKSON SEAMOUNT

DERICKSON SEAMOUNT
NOS NN 4-5
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 375.13 What requirements apply to offers? ( a ) *General.* You may only submit competitive offers (specifying a price). All offers must state the security description, par amount, and price of each security offered. All offers must equal or exceed the minimum offer amount, and be in the multiple, stated in the redemption operation announcement.
( b ) *Price format.* You must express offered prices in terms of price per $100 of par with three decimals, e.g., 102.172. The first two decimals represent fractional 32nds of a dollar. The third decimal represents eighths of a 32nd of a dollar, and must be a 0, 2, 4, or 6. For example, an offer of 102.172 means one hundred two and seventeen 32nds and two eighths of a 32nd, or in decimals, 102.5390625.
( c ) *Maximum number of offers.* There is no limit on the number of offers you may make for each eligible security. There is also no limit on the number of eligible securities you may offer.
575 P.2d 1261

#### Roy PROFITT, an unmarried man, Appellant, v. Anthony CANEZ and Maria Canez, his wife, dba Las Brazas Restaurant, Appellees.

No. 2 CA-CIV 2518.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Dec. 16, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1978.

Review Denied Feb. 22, 1978.

Miller, Pitt & Feldman, P. C. by Stanley G. Feldman and Nanette M. Warner, Tucson, for appellant.1

Everett, Bury & Moeller, P. C. by David C. Bury and Marshall Humphrey III, Tucson, for appellees.

1

. The attorneys for the appellant were substituted as counsel after the entry of the Superior Court judgment.

OPINION

STEVENS, Judge, Retired:

This case was decided in the Superior Court by a judgment which granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion urged that the *236plaintiff’s complaint did not state a claim for relief. In our reviéw on this appeal, we must view the complaint filed in the Superi- or Court in the light most favorable to stating a claim for relief. The appellant was the Superior Court plaintiff and the appellees were the Superior Court defendants. They will be referred to herein as they appeared in the Superior Court. The facts stated herein are the facts stated in the complaint.

The plaintiff’s daughter received injuries in a two-car accident, which injuries caused her death. The suit was for damages by reason of her death. The driver of the other car was not joined as a party defendant. The defendants owned and operated an establishment selling alcoholic beverages. On the day of the two-car collision and shortly, before the collision, the defendants furnished and sold alcoholic beverages to the driver, who was already in an intoxicated condition. He left the defendants’ place of business in an intoxicated condition and was intoxicated at the time of the collision. The intoxication was a condition which was a contributing factor in the cause of the collision and resulting death.

The minute entry ruling granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings succinctly states the basis of the ruling as follows:

> “The Court Finds that the State of Arizona has no ‘dramshop’ statutes or similar statutes under which to hold the Defendants liable under the circumstances.”

We agree with the trial court’s holding and affirm.

Whether Arizona needs a dram-shop law is a matter for the legislature to decide. At least, since *Pratt v. Daly,*55 Ariz. 535, 104 P.2d 147 (1940), and *Collier v. Stamatis,*63 Ariz. 285, 162 P.2d 125 (1945), there has been an awareness of the absence of such a law. Both divisions of this Court have held that Arizona does not have a dramshop law. *See Pierce v. Lopez,*16 Ariz.App. 54, 490 P.2d 1182 (1971), and *Thompson v. Bryson,*19 Ariz.App. 134, 505 P.2d 572 (1973).2

The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

NELSON, P. J., Department A, and HAIRE, J., concur.

NOTE: This cause was decided by the Judges of Division One as authorized by A.R.S. § 12-120 subsection (E).

2

. Many matters are urged by the appellant which do not appear to have been presented to the trial court. This material might be persuasive to a legislative body.
#### In re Carl WASHINGTON, Petitioner.

No. 02-6290.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 30, 2002.

Decided June 6, 2002.

*620Carl Washington, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Carl Washington petitions the court for a writ of mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (1994), directing the district court to order discovery in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001) proceeding. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Consequently, the party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires, and that his right to such relief is clear and indisputable. *Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,*449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980) (citations omitted). Mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal. *In re United Steelworkers,*595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). Washington has not met the applicable burden. Accordingly, we deny mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
#### § 526.315 United States.

The term *United States* means the United States, its territories and possessions, and all areas under the jurisdiction or authority thereof.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Brett D. Davis, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CNH Equipment Trust 2017-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                      Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                                      I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                      All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A.

 

March 25, 2019

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Brett D. Davis                                               |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Brett D. Davis                                                   |
|   | Title: | President (senior   officer in charge of the servicing function) |

 

----
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

AUWI-IN. TEXAS 78711 

JOHN L. BILJ. 

AT-rORNEY DE-R*L 

July 29, 1977 

Honorable Bill Stubblefield 

County Attorney 

Williamson County 

Georgetown, Texas 78626 

Opinion No. H-1031 

Re: Subpoena fees in misdemeanor cases. 

Dear Mr. Stubblefield: 

You have requested our opinion regarding the assessment 

of subpoena fees in misdemeanor cases. 

Article 53.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes a schedule of fees to "be allowed the sheriff, or other 

peace officer performing the same services in misdemeanor 

cases, to be taxed against the defendant on conviction." Attorney General Opinion M-184 (1968) held that these were the 

proper fees to be assessed in misdemeanor cases, and we are 

fully in agreement with that conclusion. Article 1029 of the 

Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable to felony cases, 

while article 3933a, v.T.c.S., clearly relates to fees in 

civil matters. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the assessment of subpoena fees in misdemeanor cases is governed by the 

provisions of article 53,-01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

SUMMARY 

The assessment of subpoena fees in misdemeanor cases is governed by the provisions of article 53.01 of the Code of 

Criminal Procedure. 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

P. 4256 
Honorable Bill Stubblefield - Page 2 (H-1031) 

DAVID M. KEhfDALL, First Assistant 

$pgf&&g;man 

Opinion CommittLe 

klw 

P. 4251
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Assistant Secretary Donfried’s Travel to Denmark, Czech Republic, and Slovakia 

# 									Assistant Secretary Donfried’s Travel to Denmark, Czech Republic, and Slovakia 							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

March 25, 2022

Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Dr. Karen Donfried will travel to Copenhagen, Denmark, on March 28, where she will meet with Danish, Faroese, and Greenlandic government officials and parliamentary leaders.  The Assistant Secretary willunderscore the longstanding and close U.S.-Kingdom of Denmark bilateral relationship, which is based on a range of shared values including our security cooperation and our mutual support for the people of Ukraine against Putin’s unjustified and unprovoked war.  Dr. Donfried will also meet with members of the Danish think tank and business communities to share perspectives on the impacts of Putin’s war of choice.

Assistant Secretary Donfried will then travel on March 29 to Prague, the Czech Republic, where she will meet with Czech government officials and civil society and industry leaders.  The Assistant Secretary will lead the U.S. delegation’s participation in the U.S.-Czech Strategic Dialogue, reaffirming our deep and longstanding partnership.  She will also thank the Czech government and people for their generosity and unwavering support for the people of Ukraine.

On March 30, Dr. Donfried will travel to Bratislava, Slovakia, to attend the Bucharest Nine Ministerial on March 31, and to discuss transatlantic relations with representatives from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia.  She will also meet with senior Slovak government officials to discuss our ongoing strong support for Ukraine.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsCzech RepublicDenmarkOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelRussiaSlovakiaUkraine

Back to Top
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 12

- 00257

- CR

Robert Lane MARSH

, Appellant

v.

The

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR0761

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE MARION , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, our opinion and judgment of May 1,

2013, is WITHDRAWN, and this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED November 12, 201 4

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justi ce
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                      DESKTOP DATA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                     COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                  (UNAUDITED)

                     (In thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED    NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                       SEPTEMBER 30,         SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                       1995       1994      1995       1994
                                                    ----------  --------  ---------  --------
<S>                                                 <C>         <C>       <C>        <C>
 
Net income (loss)                                      $  564    $   44     $1,167    $ (381)
Accretion of dividends on Series B redeemable
  preferred stock                                         (34)      (34)      (101)     (101)
                                                       ------    ------     ------    ------
Net income (loss) available for common
  stockholders                                         $  530    $   10     $1,066    $ (482)
                                                       ======    ======     ======    ======
 
Weighted average common shares outstanding              5,904     2,605      3,742     2,573
Weighted average shares to reflect the
  conversion of Series A, Series C, and Series D
  preferred stock as of the beginning of
  the period                                            1,714     3,847      3,128     3,847
Weighted average shares to be issued sufficient
  to generate proceeds for the payment of
  dividends on the Series A preferred stock
  payable upon the Initial Public Offering                 84       191        154       191
Common stock equivalents outstanding, pursuant
  to the treasury stock method (1)                        233       150        195        50
                                                       ------    ------     ------    ------
 
Pro forma weighted average number of common
   and common equivalent shares outstanding             7,935     6,793      7,219     6,661
                                                       ------    ------     ------    ------
 
Pro forma net income (loss) per common and
   common equivalent share (Note 1)                     $0.07    $    -      $0.15    $(0.07)
                                                       ======    ======     ======    ======
 
</TABLE>



(1) Includes common stock options issued after July 1, 1994, pursuant to the
    treasury stock method, in accordance with Securities and Exchange
    Commission Rules.
UNITED STATES

BATHYMETRIC MAP

WESTERN GULF OF MEXICO

950" Antanio

a

tg

NUEVO — |
ca

-

[

TAMAULIPAS

w*

- 4 BANK

thedisiety. UBER | asl

CAMPECHE

y |

fees we tdanpr OF
WS DEPARIMEN! OF CONUALECE
SAMOMAL COLAC AMD ATMOSIHERL ADMEMIRTEATION
WaTIONA, OChaN Harrict

19a

AATHHETENS COWVFOROE WLEReALS (00 ACTIRE 1D AAD aun OtPtH
WALL DEIWITI: oy Do mebthe aureevats

Cate aint avi Leow wat

anaes S280 278 Pac
Nowe © penamn

WESTERN GULF OF MEXICO
REGIONAL MAP
§ 526.302 Effective date. ( a ) The term *effective date* refers to the effective date of the applicable prohibitions and directives contained in this part, and, with respect to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 526.201, the earlier of the date of actual or constructive notice that such person's property and interests in property are blocked.
( b ) For the purposes of this section, c*onstructive notice* is the date that a notice of the blocking of the relevant person's property and interests in property is published in the Federal Register.
www.gpo.gov

### §14. Forfeiture for messenger's neglect of duty

Every person who, having been appointed, pursuant to section 13 of this title, to deliver the certificates of the votes of the electors to the President of the Senate, and having accepted such appointment, shall neglect to perform the services required from him, shall forfeit the sum of $1,000.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 675.)
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 7, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00258

- CR

EX PARTE Luis Miguel RAMIREZ PEREZ

From the County Court

, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10366CR

Honorable Roland Andrade , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On September 29, 2022, the State filed a “ Motion to Strike Appellant’s R eply Brief, or Permit Additional Briefing After Submission in Ex parte Ortiz (No. 04

- 22

- 00260

- CR).” W e GRANT the State’s motion as to its request to file additional post

- submission briefing. W e

ORDER that the State may file a sur

- reply brief on or before October 19, 2022. We take under

advisement the State’s motion as to its request to strike A ppellant’s reply brief. We ORDER that

A ppellant may file a response as to the State’s request to strike A ppellant’s reply brief on or

before October 1 7 , 2022.

Entered on this 7 th day of October , 2022.



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_____________ ______________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Home2024 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Adams, Jennifer M. – Republic of Cabo Verde – January 2024

# 									Adams, Jennifer M. – Republic of Cabo Verde – January 2024							

Certificate of Competency

January 19, 2024

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT: Ambassadorial Nomination: Certificate ofDemonstrated Competence — Foreign ServiceAct, Section 304(a)(4)

POST: Republic of Cabo Verde

CANDIDATE: Jennifer M. Adams

Jennifer Adams is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), class of Career Minister. She currently is USAID Senior Advisor to the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute and prior to that was a USAID Faculty Representative at the National War College, National Defense University. Earlier Ms. Adams served as the Acting Assistant Administrator, Global Health Bureau. Previously, Ms. Adams was the USAID Mission Director at the U.S. Embassy in Mozambique, the Deputy Assistant Administrator and Acting Assistant Administrator of the Global Health Bureau, and the Director of the Office of Donor Engagement in the Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning. She also served as the Development Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, China and the USAID Mission Director at the U.S. Embassy Brasilia, Brazil. Ms. Adams’ demonstrated success as a leader coupled with her wide-ranging experience across multiple geographic regions makes her a well-qualified candidate to serve as Ambassador to the Republic of Cabo Verde.

Among her other assignments, Ms. Adams served as Director of the Health and Education Office of the USAID Mission in Dakar, Senegal, the Director of the Office of Social Development at the USAID mission in Almaty, Kazakhstan, and the Deputy Division Chief, Family Planning, in the Global Health Bureau at USAID, Washington. Prior to joining USAID she worked as a Population Economist, for Dual and Associates in Rosslyn, Virginia.

Ms. Adams earned her B.A. Degree from Johns Hopkins University, her M.A. Degree from Duke University and a MPhil degree from Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex and her PhD from Cambridge University. She speaks Portuguese and French.

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

###### Editorial Note on Part 353

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 353 appear at 79 FR 8859, Feb. 14, 2014.

#### § 353.62 Payment to minors.

If the owner of a savings bond is a minor and the form of registration does not indicate that there is a representative of the minor's estate, payment will be made to the minor upon his or her request, provided the minor is of sufficient competency to sign the request for payment and to understand the nature of the transaction. In general, the fact that the request for payment has been signed by a minor and certified will be accepted as sufficient proof of competency and understanding.