alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,955
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,351
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         148,573
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,154)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 155,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        107,128
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            29
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,499
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   155,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,378
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,895
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,199
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (338)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (568)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (875)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.31)


</TABLE>
#### ELIZA ANN UTSLER *v.*NATHANIEL UTSLER.

Divorce — identity of name and person.

When the defendant is named *Nathaniel*in the bill, and he was convicted by the name of *Nathan,*proof may be received to show that these designations are of the same person; and also, that the two names are in the neighborhood esteemed one and the same.

Divorce. Cause confinement in the penitentiary for horsestealing. The facts were proven. In the record of conviction, the defendant was named *Nathan;*in this proceeding he is named *Nathaniel.*

It was questioned whether this was the same person. Several witnesses were admitted who testified, that in this part of the country *Nathan*and *Nathaniel*are considered the same name, and one witness who was at the trial, identified *the convict to be the husband*of the complainant.

Divorce decreed.
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-62243, 33-00020,333-94121, 333-38725, 333-107092, 333-107093, 333-125390 and 333-127580 on Form S-8, RegistrationStatement Nos. 33-81772, 333-47399, 333-80427, and 333-44722 on Form S-3 and RegistrationStatement No. 333-139581 on Form S-3ASR of our report dated February 28, 2008, relating to theconsolidated financial statements of PCH Atlanta Venture, LLC (which report expresses anunqualified opinion), appearing in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A ofPost Properties, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007./s/Deloitte & Touche LLPAtlanta, Georgia
Exhibit 23.1

MARK BAILEY& COMPANY. LTD.

Certified Public Accountants

Management Consultants

|                                                                  |  |                                       | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------- | 
|Office Address:
1495 Ridgeview Drive, Ste. 200
Reno, Nevada 89519 |  | Phone: 775/332.4200
Fax: 775/332.4210
|www.markbaileyco.com                                              | 







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation of our audit report dated August 13, 2009, accompanying the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K as of April 30, 2009 and 2008 and for the years then ended and the period from inception (March 15, 2006) to April 30, 2009.



/s/ Mark Bailey & Company, Ltd.

Mark Bailey & Company, Ltd.



Reno, Nevada
#### CARTER, SUPERVISOR, *v.*HAWLEY AND OTHERS.

Error — officers—supervisors—costs divided.

Officers prosecuting for penalties, are not liable for costs; and if a judgment is rendered against them for costs in such case, it is error.

Where the judgment of the court is reversed in part and affirmed in part, the costs are equally divided.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff, as supervisor of roads, brought suit in the Common Pleas to recover a penalty, for obstructing the road; the court gave judgment against him, and for costs.

*E.*Andrews, for the plaintiff in error.

*T. B. Sturges,*contra.

Wright, J.

By the practice act of 1824, (22 O. *L. 63) officers*prosecuting for penalties, are exonerated from liability for costs. The same provision is in the practice act of 1831, sect. 61; 29 O. *L.*69. The judgment *for costs,*therefore, is erroneous, and this Court so decided in Bittle *v.*Play, 5 O. *R.*270. The defendant had a right to a judgment to bar a future recovery, but he could not legally recover costs.

The judgment is reversed as to costs, and affirmed as to the residue. The costs in error, under our statute, providing for .such cases, must be equally divided between the parties; 29 O. *L.*78.
NO. 07-07-0143-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

AUGUST 9, 2007

______________________________

B4 CATTLE CO., INC. AND BERT SMITH IV, APPELLANTS

V.

COYOTE LAKE FEEDYARD, INC., APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 287 DISTRICT COURT OF BAILEY COUNTY; TH

NO. 8270; HONORABLE GORDON H. GREEN, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

B4 Cattle Co., Inc. and Bert Smith IV, appellants, have filed a motion to dismiss this

appeal because they have settled the matter and no longer wish to pursue it. No decision

of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion. Accordingly, the appeal

is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). All costs of this appeal are assessed to the

appellants. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue

forthwith.

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice
220213 EXHIBIT A. APPEARANCE SHEET VERSION FEBRUARY 13, 2023 1

EXHIBIT A1

PARTY APPEARANCE SHEET

Name of Party 

Party Name Abbreviation 

 (For Use with Zoom2)

Attorney(s) Representing Party (provide the listed information for 

each attorney who may appear for the Party): 

• Name, 

• Email, 

• Law Firm, 

• Phone Number 

• Docket Entry No. for the Attorney’s Notice of Appearance

• Zoom Screen Name (See Disclosure Statement Hearing 

Procedures Order, ¶ 7(a))

or 

Party-in-interest Not Represented by Counsel:

• Name, Email, Phone Number, Proof of Claim Number (if any)

If a Party files a supplemental Party Appearance Sheet, the Party must 

include the Docket Entry No. of the original appearance sheet in the 

new filing which must be clearly marked as a “Supplemental” Party 

Appearance Sheet. 

Note: Pursuant to the Disclosure Statement Hearing Procedures Order 

¶ 1, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico 

and the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority 

shall each be limited to 4 attorneys appearing in the Zoom session at 

any given time, and each other party-in-interest shall be limited to 2

attorneys at any given time.

1 This Party Appearance Sheet must be attached to a party-in-interest’s Informative Motion 

as Exhibit A.

2 See Disclosure Statement Hearing Procedures Order ¶ 7(a).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23525-1 Filed:02/13/23 Entered:02/13/23 16:23:47 Desc:

Exhibit A - Appearance Sheet Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
MTI Technology Corporation:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-46363, 333-50377, 333-18501 and 33-80438) on Form S-8 of MTI
Technology Corporation of our report dated May 17, 1999, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of MTI Technology Corporation and subsidiaries as of
April 3, 1999 and April 4, 1998 and the related consolidated statements of
income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three
year period ended April 3, 1999, and related schedule, which report appears in
the April 3, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of MTI Technology Corporation.

                                          KPMG LLP

Orange County, California
July 1, 1999
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3353

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 525 Main Street in Tarboro, North Carolina, 

as the ‘‘George Henry White Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 3353 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 525 Main Street in Tarboro, North Carolina, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘George Henry 

5 White Post Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘George Henry White Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 

2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
# Official Journal C 210/4 Ju

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 210 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 574 July 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 210

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 574 July 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 210/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |
| 2014/C 210/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (2) | 28 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 210/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

2014/C 210/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (2)

28

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2014/C 210/03 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation) (1) | 29 |
| 2014/C 210/04 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 | 88 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2014/C 210/03

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation) (1)

29

2014/C 210/04

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

88

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty

2

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### Perry B. King, Appellant, v. Jennie P. King, *Appellee,*

Opinion Filed March 11, 1913.

1. A wife may be denied an additional attorney’s fee in the Supreme Court, on an appeal by the husband from a decree, so free from error as to need no argument in its support.

2. A wife is entitled to separate maintenance from a husband who drives her from the home and otherwise cruelly mistreats her without cause.

3. An allowance of fifty dollars a month to a wife is not excessive, the husband, doing a retail drug business of sixty thousand dollars a year.

Appealed from the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County.

Decree affirmed.

*Wall*& McKay, for Appellant;

*Macfarlane*& Chaneey, for Appellee.

Cockrell, J.

Upon an appeal by the husband from a decree awarding a monthly stipend to the wife and an attorney’s fee for separate maintenance, the wife has petitioned this court for an order to require the appellant to pay her such an amount as may be needed to have her interests protected here. There is no intimation that the wife is not satisfied with the decree, and the husband has fully presented his contentions upon the merits.

Upon an examination of the transcript and this brief, we have no hesitancy in declaring the decree was fully *304warranted. The breach arising originally out of disagreements between the wife and two grown step-daughters whose side the husband took, drove the wife first to apartments in the house separate from the husband, and then to a sister’s home. From the time of the mutual separation in the home there was no intercourse between the married pair, and the husband refused all efforts at reconciliation, and still declares his intention never to resume the relation of husband and wife. Various acts of harsh, even cruel treatment by the husband, are alleged and proved, and no immoral conduct on the part of the wife is even suggested.

The amount of the attorney’s fee in the Circuit Court was fixed by consent of all parties, and the allowance of fifty dollars a month to the wife is upon the evidence as to the faculties of the parties a modest one. The husband is a druggist in the City of Tampa, doing a business of sixty thousand dollars gross annually, and he does not make it appear satisfactorily that practically all of this is eaten up by expenses, and it does appear that he with his two grown daughters are living on a plane, not to be attained by the abandoned wife on this allowance.

There being no occasion for the aid of counsel to the wife, her petition will be denied, and the decree will be affirmed.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
# ()RONAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 20-0417
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK,INC.,CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, and THOMPSON FALLS CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES,

Petitioners,
v. MONTANA TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,SANDERS COUNTY,and THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH A. BEST, PRESIDING JUDGE,

Respondents. 

### OCT 2 1 2020
Bovven Greenwood Clerk of Suprema Court State of Montana ORDER

This case is up before the Court on a petition for writ ofsupervisory control. IT IS ORDERED that the Honorable Shane A Vannatta, District Judge, will sit on the case in place ofJustice Laurie McKinnon,who has recused herself. The Clerk ofthis Court shall give notice ofthis Order to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Shane A.Vannatta.

.44 DATED this Z 14—

day ofOctober, 2020. For the Court,

B/Zt';' d 4 Justice 10/22/2020

Case Number: OP 20-0417
§ 369.2 Definitions. For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply: ( a ) *Bank* means, unless the context indicates otherwise: ( 1 ) A State nonmember bank; and
( 2 ) A foreign bank as that term is defined in 12 U.S.C. 3101(7) and 12 CFR 346.1(a).
( b ) *Covered interstate branch* means: ( 1 ) Any branch of a State nonmember bank, and any insured branch of a foreign bank licensed by a State, that: ( i ) Is established or acquired outside the bank's home State pursuant to the interstate branching authority granted by the Interstate Act or by any amendment made by the Interstate Act to any other provision of law; or
( ii ) Could not have been established or acquired outside of the bank's home State but for the establishment or acquisition of a branch described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section; and
( 2 ) Any bank or branch of a bank controlled by an out-of-State bank holding company.
( c ) *Home State* means: ( 1 ) With respect to a State bank, the State that chartered the bank;
( 2 ) With respect to a national bank, the State in which the main office of the bank is located;
( 3 ) With respect to a bank holding company, the State in which the total deposits of all banking subsidiaries of such company are the largest on the later of: ( i ) July 1, 1966; or
( ii ) The date on which the company becomes a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act;
( 4 ) With respect to a foreign bank: ( i ) For purposes of determining whether a U.S. branch of a foreign bank is a covered interstate branch, the home State of the foreign bank as determined in accordance with 12 U.S.C. 3103(c) and 12 CFR 347.202(j); and
( ii ) For purposes of determining whether a branch of a U.S. bank controlled by a foreign bank is a covered interstate branch, the State in which the total deposits of all banking subsidiaries of such foreign bank are the largest on the later of: ( A ) July 1, 1966; or
( B ) The date on which the foreign bank becomes a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act.
( d ) *Host State* means a State in which a covered interstate branch is established or acquired.
( e ) *Host state loan-to-deposit ratio* generally means, with respect to a particular host state, the ratio of total loans in the host state relative to total deposits from the host state for all banks (including institutions covered under the definition of “bank” in 12 U.S.C. 1813(a)(1)) that have that state as their home state, as determined and updated periodically by the appropriate Federal banking agencies and made available to the public.
( f ) *Out-of-State bank holding company* means, with respect to any State, a bank holding company whose home State is another State.
( g ) *State* means state as that term is defined in 12 U.S.C. 1813(a)(3).
( h ) *Statewide loan-to-deposit ratio* means, with respect to a bank, the ratio of the bank's loans to its deposits in a state in which the bank has one or more covered interstate branches, as determined by the FDIC.
[62 FR 47737, Sept. 10, 1997, as amended at 67 FR 38848, June 6, 2002]
## 1998 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

12-7-1998 

# G al lo v . C it y of P hi l a del phi a

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t 98-1071,98-1238

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1998

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1998 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du

. 

## R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" G al lo v . C it y of P hi l a de lp hi a " (1998). 1998 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 275. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1998/275

### Filed December 7, 1998

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Nos. 98-1071 and 98-1238

JAMES J. GALLO, JR.; ROSE MARIA GALLO,

Appellants

v.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; RENALD PELSZYNSKI, LT., individually and in his official capacity; JOSEPH R IZZO, individually; MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, individually; GERALD J. KUFTA, individually; KUFTA ASSOCIATES; COZEN & O'CONNOR; PENNSYLVANIA LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; *THOMAS J. ROONEY, in his individual capacity; WILLIAM J. CAMPBELL, in his individual capacity
*Amended per Clerk's 4/7/98 order

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 96-03909)

Argued October 8, 1998

BEFORE: GREENBERG, NYGAARD, and NOONAN,* Circuit Judges

___________________________________________________ ______________ *Honorable John T. Noonan, Jr., Senior Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by design ation.

### ORDER AMENDING OPINION

It is ordered that the slip opinion in the above ca se, filed on November 23, 1998, be amended as follows:
Insert the words "in cases against public of ficials" after "prosecution" and before "will" on the fourt h line of page 16 of the opinion.

By the Court,
/s/ Morton I. Greenberg

Circuit Judge

DATED: 7 December 1998

A True Copy: Teste:
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

2