alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-04-0074-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	MARCH 9, 2004

	______________________________

	IN THE INTEREST OF J.S.B. AND M.C.B., CHILDREN

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 286TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOCKLEY COUNTY;

	NO. 95-03-16,111; HON. HAROLD PHELAN, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.1

	Appellant Phillip Edward Barnes filed a notice of appeal on February 23, 2004.  However, he did not pay the $125 filing fee required from appellants under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5.  An affidavit of indigence was filed in the trial court on February 27, 2004, per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1, but it was contested.  Furthermore, the contest was upheld.  By letter from this Court dated February 24, 2004, we informed appellant that “the filing fee in the amount of $125.00 has not been paid . . . .  Failure to pay the filing fee within ten (10) days from the date of this notice may result in a dismissal.”  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c); see Holt v. F. F. Enterprises, 990 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d).  The deadline lapsed, and the fee was not received. 

	Because appellant has failed to pay the requisite filing fee as directed by the court, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c). 

							Per Curiam
#### PIETER VELKERS, JR., *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. GLENS FALLS, INSURANCE COMPANY, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS AND INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 98 *N. J. Super.*166.

*Messrs. Schneider*cS *Morgan*and *Mr. Robert J. C. McCoid*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Gaffey, Webb & McDermott*and *Messrs. Budd, Lamer, Kent & Gross*for the respondents.

March *12,*1968.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: January 3, 2011
    /s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer) and Chairman/s/ Kenneth S. CragunKenneth S. CragunChief Financial Officer (principal financial
and accounting officer) and Secretary
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT VICTORINO CATI, DOC# H26754, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-1313 ) JESSICA CATI, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 14, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; John Radabaugh, Judge. Victorino Cati, pro se. No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
No. 44083.

#### Protests 961645-G, etc., of Nurre Co., Inc. (Indianapolis).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was found that paragraph 231 does not carry any such rate for this merchandise. On the record presented the protests were overruled.
No. 52667.

protests 645535-G, etc. (New York).

#### Comet Textile Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
#### James N. Job, *Appellant, v.*Thomas Davidson, *Respondent.*

Judgment and order reversed; new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by Bookes, J.
(Reap. Dec. 10450)

#### Daido Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 817804, etc.

(Decided February 13, 1963)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The proper value for dutiable purposes of certain chain and parts thereof, exported from Japan, forms the subject of the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule attached to and made a part of this decision.

The parties hereto have submitted said appeals for decision upon a stipulation of fact wherein it has been agreed that the appeals listed in the attached schedule are abandoned insofar as they relate to chains invoiced as:

> KEO y2" x *y8"*x 500'

> DID *y2" x y8”*x 56'

It was further stipulated and agreed that, at the time of exportation, such or similar chains and parts thereof (other than the items abandoned above) were not sold nor freely offered for sale for home consumption in Japan, nor for exportation to the United States. It was also stipulated and agreed that such or similar chains and parts thereof *406(other than the items abandoned above) were not sold or freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the United States at the time of exportation and that the cost of production for such merchandise was the invoiced unit prices, less the items shown on the invoices accompanying the entries as ocean freight and insurance (or as insurance premium).

Upon the record before the court, I 'find and hold that the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule insofar as they relate to chains invoiced as:

> KEC x %" X 500'

> DID %" x i/s" x 56'

having been abandoned, are dismissed. I further find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(f)), is the proper basis of value for the chain and parts thereof in issue (other than the items abandoned above) and that such value is the invoiced unit prices, less the items shown on the invoices accompanying the entries as ocean freight and insurance (or as insurance premium).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4971 

To amend the Housing Act of 1949 to permit the assumption of loans 

under the Doug Bereuter Section 502 Single Family Housing Loan 

Guarantee Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2024 

Mr. WELCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Housing Act of 1949 to permit the assumption 

of loans under the Doug Bereuter Section 502 Single 

Family Housing Loan Guarantee Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Homeownership 

5 Continuity Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4971 IS

1 SEC. 2. ASSUMPTION OF LOANS UNDER THE DOUG BEREU2 TER SECTION 502 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING 

3 LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM. 

4 Section 502(h)(10) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 

5 U.S.C. 1472(h)(10)) is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(10) ASSUMPTION.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may 

8 provide for the assumption of a current guaran9 teed loan made under this subsection by any in10 dividual qualified to receive a guaranteed loan 

11 under this subsection upon the transfer to that 

12 individual of the property for which the guaran13 teed loan was made. 

14 ‘‘(B) RELEASE FROM LIABILITY.—If a bor15 rower of a guaranteed loan under this sub16 section transfers the property for which the 

17 guaranteed loan was made to an individual who 

18 assumes the guaranteed loan under subpara19 graph (A), the transferor, and any co-borrower 

20 or guarantor of the transferor, shall be relieved 

21 of liability with respect to the guaranteed loan. 

22 ‘‘(C) ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATIONS, 

23 RIGHTS, AND INTERESTS.—The Secretary shall 

24 provide in each assumption under subparagraph 

25 (A) for the assumption of the obligations, 

26 rights, and interests under the terms of the 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4971 IS

1 guaranteed loan or such other terms as the Sec2 retary determines appropriate.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 44085.

#### Protest 997454-G of L. Oppleman, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The evidence established that the merchandise is in chief value of wood and that it is operated solely by means of wind. The protest was therefore sustained.
Before the Third Division,

November 28, 1960

No. 64926.

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., a/c Ucagco, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 241445-K, etc. (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decorative after-dinner cups and saucers the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Class Company*(47 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 719), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (a) The items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to September 10, 1955, at 50 cents per dozen, but not less than 45 percent nor more than 70 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 212, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 51909), and (b) all items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on and after September 10, 1955, at 45 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Japanese Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 53865), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 53877).
#### Jessel Rothman, Appellant, v Richard Rogers et al., Defendants, and Mary Rogers, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 361]

—In

an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment on an account stated, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), entered October 12, 1993, as granted the cross motion of the respondent Mary Rogers to vacate the plaintiff’s order of attachment on certain real and personal property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Upon a motion to vacate an attachment, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing the grounds for the attachment, the need for continuing the levy, and the probability of success on the merits *(see,*CPLR 6223 [b]). The court has broad discretion in considering such an application *(see, Zenith Bathing Pavilion v Fair Oaks S.S. Corp.,*240 NY 307, 312-313).

Here, the plaintiff did not establish that the defendant Richard Rogers could not be personally served by any available method *(see,*CPLR 308, 6201 [2]). Moreover, the plaintiff’s allegation that Richard Rogers was attempting to defraud his creditors or frustrate enforcement of a judgment against him was devoid of evidentiary support *(see, Computer Strategies v Commodore Bus. Machs.,*105 AD2d 167, 173). The Supreme Court therefore properly granted the respondent’s application to vacate the order of attachment. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

January 12, 2006

Mr. Don M. Dean

Underwood Wilson Berry Stein & Johnson

P. O. Box 9158

Amarillo, TX 79105-9158

Ms.  Donna  G.  Davidson

Potts & Reilly, L.L.P.

401 West 15th Street, Suite 850

Austin, TX 78701

RE:Case Number:  06-0025

Court of Appeals Number:  

Trial Court Number:  

Style:IN RE  ANETTE CARLISLE

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued the enclosed order in the above-referenced case. 

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 06-0025Page 1**
EX-32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

INFE- Human Resources, Inc. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the amended quarterly report of INFE- Human Resources, Inc.
(INFE-HR) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending Febuary 29, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Arthur Viola, Chief Executive Officer of INFE-HR, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of INFE-HR.

/s/    ARTHUR VIOLA
--------------------
       Arthur Viola      Chief Executive Officer          July 14, 2004
                         Sole Director
                         and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
23.2
  CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-130505, 333-129754, 333-114866, 333-97769, 333-66746, and 333
37914) of Genius Products, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated April
13, 2006 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Genius Products, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31,
2007.
 
  Los
      Angeles, California
                  March
      17, 2008
              /s/ SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN
  LLP
#### FRANK KULBACKI, ADM. *ETC.,*PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. RICHARD SOBCHINAKY, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

*Messrs. Lamb, Langan & Blalce*and *Mr. H. Curtis Meanor*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Samuel Kaplan*and *Mr. Seymour Feingold*for the respondent.

March 26, 1962.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5071]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CA-310-0777-XG]


Notice of Public Meeting: Northwest California Resource Advisory 
Council

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 
the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
Northwest California Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated 
below.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday and Friday, June 7 and 8, 
2007, in Fortuna, California. On June 7, the council will convene at 10 
a.m. at the River Lodge Meeting Center's ``Monday Club,'' 610 Main St., 
and depart for a field tour of public lands in the Headwaters Forest 
Reserve. On June 8, the council convenes at 8 a.m. at the Monday Club. 
The council will hear public comments at 11 a.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynda Roush, BLM Arcata Field Office 
manager, (707) 468-4000; or BLM Public Affairs Officer Joseph J. 
Fontana, (530) 252-5332.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 12-member council advises the Secretary 
of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and 
management issues associated with public land management in Northwest 
California. At this meeting, agenda topics include a discussion of 
field office uses of Land and Water Conservation Fund allocations, a 
discussion of royalty receipts in the BLM geothermal energy program, a 
review of minerals management and products produced by each field 
office, an update on the Cow Mountain Management Plan, status report on 
the BLM Managing for Excellence Initiative, a report on development of 
the Lack's Creek Management Plan, and an update on the Sacramento River 
Bend Area of Critical Environmental Concern. All meetings are open to 
the public. Members of the public may present written comments to the 
council. Each formal council meeting will have time allocated for 
public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, 
and the time available, the time for individual comments may be 
limited. Members of the public are welcome on field tours, but they 
must provide their own transportation and lunch. Individuals who plan 
to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language 
interpretation and other reasonable accommodations, should contact the 
BLM as provided above.

    Dated: March 14, 2007.
Joseph J. Fontana,
Public Affairs Officer.
 [FR Doc. E7-5071 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
#### Fogel's Garage, Inc. *v.*Philadelphia et al., Appellants.

Argued January 16, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*405reargument refused February 20, 1969, Mr. Justice Cohen dissenting.

*Levy Anderson,*First Deputy City Solicitor, with him *Edward 0. Bauer, Jr.,*City Solicitor, for appellants.

*Arlin M. Adams,*with him *Ira P. Tiger,*and Sehnader, *Harrison, Segal & Lewis,*for appellees.

February 7, 1969:

Opinion by

Mb. Justice Jones,

In view of our holding in *Mastrangelo v. Buckley,*433 Pa. 352, 250 A. 2d 447 (1969), decided this date enjoining, inter alia, the enforcement of Philadelphia City Council Bill No. 825 increasing the tax on outdoor parking lots from 10% to 20%, we need not consider the present appeal pressing additional arguments for the invalidity of that Bill. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. Each party to pay own costs.

Mr. Justice Cohen and Mr. Justice Eagen dissent.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Logan, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 508]

—Appeal by the defen*663dant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered May 24, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although it was error for the prosecutor to suggest during her opening statement that the evidence to be presented at trial had been presented to the Grand Jury, which returned an indictment *(see, People v LaDolce,*196 AD2d 49, 54-55; *People v Sandy,*115 AD2d 27, 31), any prejudice was cured by the trial court’s instruction to the jury that the indictment has no probative or evidentiary value *(see, People v Sanders,*213 AD2d 432; *People v James,*197 AD2d 429).

The defendant’s contention that he was prejudiced by certain comments that were made by the prosecutor during her summation is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Comer,*73 NY2d 955; *People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011 (the Report) of TICC
Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jonathan H. Cohen, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/ S / JONATHAN H. COHEN                       
|Name: Jonathan H. Cohen Date:
November 9, 2011
No. 64933.

#### Federal Wine & Liquor Co. *v.*United States,

protest 59/33631 (B) (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### In the Matter of Diane G., Respondent, v Veronica R., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[635 NYS2d 499]

—In a custody *630proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the paternal grandmother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated October 12,1994, as granted custody of the child to the mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly found that an award of custody to the mother is in the best interests of the child based upon the testimony of the parties, the recommendations of the examining psychologist, the caseworker from the Child Welfare Administration, the Law Guardian, the forensic reports, and the court’s in-camera interview with the child *(see, Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167; *Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d 543). O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ANGEL L. ARBOLAY, § § No. 194, 2020 Defendant Below, § Appellant, §

§ Court Below−Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1808009995(N) § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. § Submitted: March 17, 2021 Decided: March 24, 2021

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA , and MONTGOMERY-REEVES , Justices.

ORDER

This 24 th day of March, 2021, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in its order dated May 28, 2020. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice