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

#### John P. Kipp agt. David Brandt *et al.*

*Poughkeepsie, Special Term,*

*August*28, 1875.

*Pa/t'Ues in a mortgage foreclosure—alleged, deficiency.*

On the foreclosure of mortgaged premises, where it appears after the sale that a mortgage executed by a grantee of the mortgaged premises, whose deed had not been recorded, and an assignment of the mortgage to a person who was not made a party to the foreclosure, had been recorded before the filing of the notice of pendency of the action—neither the plaintiff nor his attorneys having actual notice of this mortgage or assignment:

*Reid,*that all such incumbrancers were foreclosed by the judgment in the action, notwithstanding they were not made parties thereto.

*Hon.*Joseph F. Barnard, *Justice.*

This action was brought for the foreclosure of. a mortgage. The mortgagor and all subsequent grantees of the mortgaged premises *whose conveyances were of*record, and all persons having liens or incumbrances upon said premises by virtue of mortgages executed *by such grantees,*or of judgments obtained against *them,*were made parties defendant to the action. Judgment of foreclosure was regularly obtained and entered, and the mortgaged premises sold. The purchaser paid down the usual percentage on the' sale, but before the day fixed for completing the sale and delivery of the referee’s deed he discovered that a mortgage executed by a grantee of the mortgaged premises *whose deed was not recorded,*and an assignment of said mortgage to a person who was not made a party defendant to the foreclosure, *had been recorded*before the *359filing of the notice of pendency of the action. Upon this ground the purchaser moved to be relieved from his purchase; and that the decree in the foreclosure action be opened, and the said mortgagee and assignee made parties defendant thereto.

*C. B.*Herrick, for motion.

*Gaul & Esselstyn,*opposed.

It appeared that neither the plaintiff nor his attorneys had *actual*notice of this mortgage or assignment.

Plaintiff claimed that the deed to the mortgagor in this mortgage not being recorded, he was not bound in his foreclosure to take notice of any incumbrances against said mortgagor, of which he had not *actual*notice; and that all such incumbrancers were foreclosed by the judgment.in the action, notwithstanding they were not made parties thereto.

The court denied the motion.
Summary of Meeting between the URS Corporation, the Federal Stormwater Association, Small

Business Advocacy, and Others

June 9 , 2014

List of Attendees

Deborah Nagle, EPA

Kevin Weiss, EPA

Erika Farris, EPA

Kevin Bromberg, Small Business Administration (SBA)

Bob Fronczak, Association of American Railroads (AAR)

Jeff Longsworth, Barnes & Thornburg for Federal Stormwater Association

Betsy Beckwith, Automotive Recyclers Association

Jack Waggener, URS Corporation

David L. Wagger, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI)

Jeff Hannapel (The Policy Group)

On phone:

Pete Ciarleglio (URS)

John Morton (Alcoa)

Jeff Miller (Treated Wood CouncilO

Summary of Meeting

During the meeting, Jeff Longsworth from the Federal Stormwater Association discussed sever al

industry concerns with the benchmark monit oring requirements in the MSGP.

Jack Waggener from the URS Corporation presented the results of an analysis conducted by URS that

compared MSGP benchmark monitoring data to data from the National Stormwater Qual ity Database. It

was requested that EPA put this analysis on the docket for the permit.

It was recommended that EPA consider changes to the benchmark monitoring requirements

.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending May 24, 2008

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                            | End of Comment Period                                 
|----------------- | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|FIFTH THIRD BANK  | * Branch       | Fifth Third Bank, Grand Rapids, Michigan to establish a bank branch at 601 South Clark Street, Chicago, IL | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | Not available 
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for Third Quarter of 2008 (July 1, 2008 - September 30, 2008)

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-111966, 333-81876, 333-103241 and 333-32225)
 of Digital Video Systems, Inc. and the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (file Nos. 333-65598, 333-103243, and 333-39211)
 of Digital Video Systems, Inc. of our report dated March 29, 2004
relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.

/s/ Burr, Pilger & Mayer LLP
Palo Alto, California
April 28, 2004

---
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-30544

DAVID H. CLIBURN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

POLICE JURY ASSOCIATION OF LOUISIANA, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

January 15, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant David Cliburn filed an ERISA claim against Appellee

Police Jury Association of Louisiana, Inc. The suit was dismissed

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, on the grounds that

Cliburn sought participation in a “governmental plan” not covered

by the statute. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(32); 1003(b). Cliburn does

not appeal from this dismissal. Following dismissal, the Police

Jury Association requested attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses
g:\opin\98-30544.opn -2-

under a provision of ERISA which states: “In any action under this

subchapter (other than an action described in paragraph (2)) by a

participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary, the court in its discretion

may allow a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs of action to either

party.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1). The district court awarded to the

Police Jury Association $15,600.00 in fees and $533.33 in expenses.

Cliburn appeals from that award and argues, inter alia, that

subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.

District courts are vested with federal question jurisdiction

in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district

court’s dismissal of Cliburn’s claims for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction is inconsistent with an award of fees and costs under

a statute which requires “any action under this subchapter.” In

dismissing Cliburn’s suit, the district court determined that there

was no ERISA “action.” Furthermore, given that ERISA is

inapplicable to Cliburn’s claims, it is inconsistent to conclude

that either Cliburn or the Police Jury Association is “a

participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary” eligible to invoke

§ 1132(g)(1). Given that the district court lacked jurisdiction to

hear Cliburn’s claims under ERISA, it logically follows that the

court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Police Jury

Association’s request for fees, costs, and expenses under ERISA.

See, e.g., Laborers Local 938 Joint Health & Welfare Trust Fund v.
g:\opin\98-30544.opn -3-

B.R. Starnes Co., 827 F.2d 1454, 1458 (11th Cir. 1987). We

therefore VACATE the district court’s award of fees and costs and

DISMISS this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending February 23, 2008

|Filer                    | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                 | End of Comment Period                             
|------------------------ | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|PARKSIDE FINANCIAL, INC. | * 3A1         | Parkside Financial, Inc., Clayton, Missouri, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Parkside Financial Bank & Trust, Clayton, Missouri (in organization). | Newspaper:03/23/2008Federal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:               | 03/23/2008   
|Federal Register:        | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for Second Quarter of 2008 (April 1, 2008 - June 30, 2008)

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Exhibit 23.1

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:

 

(1) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-164080) of UniTek Global Services, Inc.

(2) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-144946) of UniTek Global Services, Inc.

 

of our report dated March 30, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of UniTek Global Services, Inc. and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of UniTek Global Services, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

March 30, 2011

 

 

 

 



 

---
#### Avery L. Smith and another, *Appellants, v.*James Knapp, *Respondent.*

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered before another referee, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of AXENT Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos.333-08827, 333-08829, 333-
08831, 333-24205, 333-47373, 333-47375 and 333-47379) of our reports, dated
January 27, 1998, on our audits of the balance sheets of AXENT Technologies,
Inc., as of December 31, 1996 and 1997, and the related statements
of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years
in the period ended December 31, 1997 and the related financial statement
schedules, which reports are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  We
also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Selected
Consolidated Financial Data."


                                    Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


Washington, D.C.
March 30, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
PCD INC.'S FORM 10-K FOR PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,990
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                       205
<INVENTORY>                                      4,796
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,725
<PP&E>                                          20,695
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,852
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,592
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,357
<BONDS>                                         88,203
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,592
<SALES>                                         29,796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,796
<CGS>                                           15,120
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,816
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,167
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,638)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (11,802)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,836)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,836)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.83)



</TABLE>
#### § 4.05-25 Reports when state of war exists.

During the period when a state of war exists between the United States and any foreign nation, communications in regard to casualties or accidents shall be handled with caution and the reports shall not be made by radio or by telegram.
Exhibit 23.2**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-32805,filed on December 29, 1989, No. 333-02857, filed on April 26, 1996, No. 333-02859, No. 333-42769,filed on December 19, 1997, No. 33-32970, No. 333-54958 filed on February 5, 2001, No. 333-54960,filed on February 5, 2001, and No. 333-108754, filed on September 12, 2003) and RegistrationStatements on Form S-3 (No. 33-46239, No. 333-06019, filed on June 14, 1996, No. 333-00645, lastamended on April 11, 1996, No. 333-31651, filed on July 21, 1997, No. 333-43097, last amended onJanuary 14, 1998, No. 333-124671 filed on May 6, 2005, and No. 333-134860, filed on June 8, 2006)of our report dated October 13, 2004 (October 7, 2005 as to the effects of the Zilactindiscontinued operations and October 9, 2006 as to the effects of the Innovative Swab Technology,Inc. discontinued operations, both described in Note 2 to theconsolidated financial statements),which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to theclassification of the results of operations of its Zilactin brand over-the-counter lip and oralcare products and the Innovative Swab Technology businesses as discontinued operations inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Zila, Inc. for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2006./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPPhoenix, Arizona
#### § 42.05-10 Assigning authority.

This term means the “American Bureau of Shipping” or such other recognized classification society which the Commandant may approve as the load line assigning and issuing authority for a vessel, as provided in sections 3 of the load line acts.

[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10051, July 12, 1968]
**Exhibit 31.2**
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Gregory T. Barnum, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Computer NetworkTechnology Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrants and we have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluations; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting.
Date: September 7, 2004      /s/ GREGORY T. BARNUM   Gregory T. Barnum   Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-20457 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

SHAWN PEARSON and 

DWAYNE DUPREE 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY (ECF #106) 

In this criminal case, the government seeks to admit expert testimony from Special 

Agent Joseph Jensen concerning the location of certain cell phones. On September 22, 

2016, Defendant Shawn Pearson (“Pearson”) filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony 

(the “Motion”). (See ECF #106.) Defendant Dwayne Dupree joined the Motion. (See ECF 

#107). The Court held a Daubert hearing on January 27, 2017 (the “Daubert Hearing”). 

For the reasons stated on the record at the Daubert Hearing, the Motion is DENIED. 

Special Agent Jensen may offer his proposed opinion testimony subject to the limitations 

and in the manner stated by Court at the Daubert Hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: January 30, 2017 

Case 2:15-cr-20457-MFL-APP ECF No. 119, PageID.488 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 2
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or 

counsel of record on January 30, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

Case 2:15-cr-20457-MFL-APP ECF No. 119, PageID.489 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 2
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending August 23, 2008

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for Forth Quarter of 2008 (October 1, 2008 - December 31, 2008)

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us