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

The vendee of chattels sold in fraud of the vendor’s creditors cannot set up the vendor’s right of exemption from attachment in defence of an action by the creditors for the recovery of the property.

Trovbr, for hay. The plaintiff, being a deputy of the sheriff, attached the hay as the property of Nathan A. & William F. Parker, described in the writ as late co-partners. Prior to the attach*291ment, the defendant purchased the hay, leaving it in the barn where it was attached. Subsequent to the attachment he removed the hay. The referee found the sale fraudulent as against Parker’s creditors, and the defendant guilty. The defendant claimed that four tons of the hay was exempt from attachment to each of the Parkers, and that the plaintiff acquired no title thereto by his attachment.

Lord, for the defendant.

*Gr. Q. £ Gr. K.*Bartlett, for the plaintiff.

Allen, J.

The case of *Currier*v. Sutherland, 54 N. H. 475, is authority that exempted property may, by the debtor, be sold in fraud of creditors. And when the title to exempted property has passed to another by sale, the proceeds in the hands of the vendee are not exempted from attachment by trustee process. *Manchester*v. Burns, 45 N. H. 482; *Wooster*v. Page, 54 N. H. 125. The benefit of exemption is given by the statute to the debtor, and not to another person to whom the debtor may have sold the property, and nothing is left to be inferred. *Somers*v. Emerson, 58 N. H. 48, 49.

The defendant purchased the hay, but permitted the possession to remain with the debtors, and the want of a change of possession was not satisfactorily explained. Whether or not there was fraud in fact was immaterial. Want of a change of possession in law made the sale fraudulent as to the vendors’ creditors, and the defendant could not, in answer to the action, set up any right of the vendors to exemption. None of the hay was exempt.

*Case discharged.*

Bingham, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Order entered November 2 0 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 01197

- CV

WILLIAM B. BLAYLOCK , ET AL. , Appellant s

V.

THOMAS P. HOLLAND , ET AL. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas Co unty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 09

- 08910



### O RDER

We GRANT appellants’ November 19, 2013 unopposed second motion for an extension

of time to file a brief. Appellants shall file their brief on or before November 26, 2013.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending December 31, 2005

----

Regulations And PoliciesRegulation E (Electronic Fund Transfers)  -- final amendments to the regulation and official staff commentary on electronic check conversions, preauthorized transfers from accounts, error resolutions, and ATM disclosures, and interim final rule with request for comment on payroll card accounts (Docket Nos. R-1210, R-1234, and R-1247).					-Approved, December 19, 2005 					(AC)

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: January 5, 2006
#### Catharine Martin, *as*Administratrix, *etc., Respondent, v.*The Dry Dock, East Broadway and Battery Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending December 17, 2005

----

Advisory CouncilsConsumer Advisory Council  -- appointment of ten new members and designation of Lori Swanson as Chair and Lisa Sodeika as Vice Chair for 2006.					-Approved, December 16, 2005 					

Bank Holding CompaniesBank of America Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina  -- to acquire MBNA Corporation, Wilmington, Delaware.					-Approved, December 15, 2005 					Cathay General Bancorp, Los Angeles, California  -- to acquire Great Eastern Bank, New York, New York.					-Approved, December 12, 2005 					NBT Bancorp Inc., Norwich, New York  -- to merge with CNB Bancorp, Inc., Gloversville, and thereby acquire its subsidiary, City National Bank and Trust Company.					-Approved, December 13, 2005 					New York Community Bancorp, Inc., Westbury, New York  -- to merge with Long Island Financial Corp., Islandia, and thereby acquire its subsidiary, Long Island Commercial Bank.					-Approved, December 14, 2005 					Treetops Acquisition Group LP, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands; Treetops Acquisition Group, Ltd.; Treetops Acquisition Group II LP, Treetops Acquisition Group II, Ltd.; Cam-Discount, Ltd.; and Edgar M. Bronfman IDB Trusts A through G, Quebec, Canada  -- to become bank holding companies and to acquire up to 51 percent of the shares of Israel Discount Bank, Ltd., Tel Aviv, Israel, and thereby acquire control of Israel Discount Bank of New York, New York, New York.					-Approved, December 16, 2005 					

Board OperationsBoard  -- budgets for 2006-2007.					-Approved, December 15, 2005 					Office of Inspector General  -- budget for 2006-2007.					-Approved, December 15, 2005 					

Discount RatesDiscount and Advance Rates  -- increase in the primary credit rate from 5 percent to 5-1/4 percent by twelve Federal Reserve Banks.					-Approved, December 13, 2005 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: December 21, 2005
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: 10
Federal Reserve Bank of: Kansas City

## Filings received during the week ending August 15, 2009

|Filer                 | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | End of Comment Period                                
|--------------------- | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|BERN BANCSHARES, INC. | * 3A3         | Bern Bancshares, Inc., Bern, Kansas, to acquire up to an additional 1.57 percent of the voting shares of UBT Bancshares, Inc., parent of United Bank & Trust, both in Marysville, Kansas, resulting in a total ownership of up to 6.48 percent. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:            | Not available
|Federal Register:     | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

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

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|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
§ 520.12 Time/Volume rates. ( a ) *General.* Common carriers or conferences must publish in their tariffs rates that are conditioned upon the receipt of a specified aggregate volume of cargo or aggregate freight revenue over a specified period of time.
( b ) *Publication requirements.* ( 1 ) All rates, charges, classifications rules and practices concerning time/volume rates must be set forth in the carrier's or conference's tariff.
( 2 ) The tariff must identify: ( i ) The shipment records that will be maintained to support the rate; and
( ii ) The method to be used by shippers giving notice of their intention to use a time/volume rate prior to tendering any shipments under the time/volume arrangement.
( c ) *Accepted rates.* Once a time/volume rate is accepted by one shipper, it will remain in effect for the time specified, without amendment. If no shipper gives notice within 30 days of publication, a common carrier or conference may cancel the time/volume rate.
( d ) *Records.* Shipper notices and shipment records supporting a time/volume rate must be maintained by the offering carrier or conference for at least 5 years after a shipper's use of a time/volume rate has ended.
( e ) *Liquidated damages.* Time/volume rates must not impose or attempt to impose liquidated damages on any shipper that moves cargo under the rate. Carriers and agreements must rerate cargo moved at the applicable tariff rate if a shipper fails to meet the requirements of the time/volume offer.
[64 FR 11225, Mar. 8, 1999, as amended at 89 FR 33, Jan. 2, 2024]
§ 506.2 Definitions. ( a ) *Commission* means the Federal Maritime Commission.
( b ) *Civil Monetary Penalty* means any penalty, fine, or other sanction that: ( 1 ) ( i ) Is for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law; or
( ii ) Has a maximum amount provided by Federal law;
( 2 ) Is assessed or enforced by the Commission pursuant to Federal law; and
( 3 ) Is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal Courts.
( c ) *Consumer Price Index* means the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers published by the Department of Labor.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR MAXUS REAL  PROPERTY  INVESTORS  -FOUR,  L.P.  AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000700720
<NAME> MAXUS REAL PROPERTY INVESTORS-FOUR, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S> <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE> 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END> NOV-30-2000
<PERIOD-START> MAR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END> MAY-31-2000
 <CASH> 509,000
<SECURITIES> 0
<RECEIVABLES> 31,000
<ALLOWANCES> 0
<INVENTORY> 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS> 0
<PP&E> 16,271,000
<DEPRECIATION> 8,956,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS> 7,909,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES> 0
<BONDS> 9,193,000
<COMMON> 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY> 0
<PREFERRED> 0
<OTHER-SE> 0
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 7,909,000
<SALES> 794,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES> 863,000
<CGS> 0
 <TOTAL-COSTS> 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES> 596,000
<LOSS-PROVISION> 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE> 288,000
<INCOME-PRETAX> 1,520,000
<INCOME-TAX> 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING> 0
<DISCONTINUED> 0
<EXTRAORDINARY> 0
<CHANGES> 0
<NET-INCOME> 1,520,000
<EPS-BASIC> 110.43
<EPS-DILUTED> 0


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2009 

1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

139101 & (39) 

JAMES PLAGGEMEYER and RUTH 

PLAGGEMEYER, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 139101 

 COA: 284016 

Muskegon CC: 07-045215-NI 

THOMAS LEE, SUSAN LEE, and RYAN 

E. LEE, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2009 judgment of the Court 

of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of McCormick v 

Carrier (Docket No. 136738) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision 

in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we 

ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case. 

 YOUNG, J. (dissenting). I would deny leave to appeal, for the reasons stated in 

Justice Corrigan’s dissenting statement in McCormick v Carrier, 485 Mich ___ (Docket 

No. 136738, lv gtd order entered August 20, 2009).
<PAGE>   1


                                                                 EXHIBIT 23


                           [CROWE CHIZEK LETTERHEAD]


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference and use of our report dated
February 6, 1998, which appears in Commercial National Financial Corporation's
annual report on Form 10-K for 1997, in that corporation's previously filed
registration statements, as amended, for that corporation's 1989 Stock Option
Plan (Registration No. 33-30392), Dividend Reinvestment Plan (Registration No.
33-30239), and 1991 Stock Option Plan (Registration No. 33-39772 and 33-92666).



                                             Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP


March 24, 1998
South Bend, Indiana
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20646

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff–Appellee, 

v. 

MICHELLE R. FREYTAG, 

Defendant–Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:15-CR-67-1 

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Michelle R. Freytag has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Freytag has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow

us to make a fair evaluation of Freytag’s claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 22, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20646 Document: 00514001929 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2017
No. 15-20646

2 

collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014); 

United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 177 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). 

We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Freytag’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, Freytag’s motion for appointment of new 

counsel, to strike the briefs, and to remand the case to the district court for 

resentencing is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-20646 Document: 00514001929 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-24-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-2000
<CASH>                                          10,829
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,478
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250
<INVENTORY>                                     24,922
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,869
<PP&E>                                          24,325
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,060
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  69,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,360
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           18,700
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            22
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    69,457
<SALES>                                         39,017
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,017
<CGS>                                           17,577
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,969
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    12
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 635
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,179)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,179)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,179)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      23.1**




Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




Berliner
      Communications, Inc.


Elmwood
      Park, New Jersey




We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form
      S-8 (No. 333-43032) of Berliner Communications, Inc. of our report dated
      September 29, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements, which
      appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K.












/s/
      BDO
      Seidman, LLP


Woodbridge,
      New Jersey




September
      29, 2008
EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS
     I, Douglas D. Burkett, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Zila, Inc.
     2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure 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 suchevaluation; 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 fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting.
Date: October 14, 2004   /s/ Douglas D. Burkett Ph. D.    Douglas D. Burkett Ph. D.  Chief Executive Officer
#### § 52.01-40 Materials and workmanship.

All materials to be used in any of the work specified in the various sections of this part must be free from injurious defects and must have a workmanlike finish. The construction work must be executed in a workmanlike manner with proper tools or equipment and must be free from defects which would impair strength or durability.
§ 5.701 Appeals in general. A party may appeal the decision of an ALJ under the procedures in subpart J of 33 CFR part 20. A party may appeal only the following issues: ( a ) Whether each finding of fact rests on substantial evidence.
( b ) Whether each conclusion of law accords with applicable law, precedent, and public policy.
( c ) Whether the ALJ committed any abuses of discretion.
( d ) The ALJ's denial of a motion for his or her disqualification.
[USCG-1998-3472, 64 FR 28075, May 24, 1999]