alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the NEW YORK, WEST SHORE AND BUFFALO RAILWAY COMPANY to Acquire Land of ELIZABETH L. CHRYSTIE and Others.

*Costs*— when *but one bill of costs can be taxed by the defendants, although they have appeared by different attorneys.*

Appeal from an order made at a Special Term, denying a motion to modify an order theretofore made herein by Judge Cullen.

This is a special proceeding to acquire title to lands owned by Elizabeth L. Chrystie, and of which Adams *&*Lang are lessees. Elizabeth L. Chrystie and Thomas W. Chrystie appeared and answered separately by Tillotson & Kent, their attorneys. Adams & Lang appeared and answered separately by W. W. Badger, their attorney.

Appeals were taken by the parties above named by their separate attorneys from the orders of the Special and General Terms, and the proceedings were finally dismissed in the Court of Appeals, with costs. On July 10, 1882, Judge Cullen made an order on the remittitur from the Court of Appeals, allowing costs in the Supreme Court to each of the defendants.

The court at General Term said “ The decision of the Court of Appeals in this matter was that the order of the General Term be reversed and proceedings dismissed, with costs. Then the Special Term order of this court, making the order of the Court of Appeals the order of the Supreme Court, gave costs to each of the appellants. This was beyond the order of the Court of Appeals and was done with*506out notice. The Court of Appeals dismissed the proceedings, with costs, and therefore that must be held to intend costs of the proceeding in the Supreme Court. Yet it can only intend one bill of costs, and the order of the Special Term awarding costs to each appellant was unwarranted and should have been modified, and the order refusing such modification should be modified so as to allow one bill of costs in this court and the Court of Appeals to be taxed.

*G. F. Brotan,*for the appellants, Elizabeth L. Chrystie and others.

*Wm. W. Badger,*for railway company, respondent.

Opinion ,by

DyKMAN, J.;

Gilbeet, J., concurred;

Barnaed, P. J., not sitting.

Order modified by allowing one bill of costs to be taxed and such costs to include costs in this court.
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------

Suite 4500
700 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, Washington  98104-5044

Tel: (206) 292-1800
Fax: (206) 343-7809
www.usdeloitte.com                                                      DELOITTE
                                                                        & TOUCHE








September 20, 2000


Securities and Exchange Commission
Mail Stop 11-3
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

Dear Sirs/Madams:

We have read and agree with the comments in Item 4 of Form 8-K of First Mutual
Bancshares, Inc. dated September 19, 2000.

Yours truly,

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
------------------------------
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Seattle, Washington
#### James Linden, *Respondent, v.*The Mayor, etc., of the City of New York, *Appellants.*

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to. abide event. Opinion by Daniels, J.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 694 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8308 

[Report No. 118–849] 

To reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2024 

Mr. HARDER of California (for himself, Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana, Mr. 

VALADAO, Mr. GARAMENDI, and Mr. PANETTA) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

DECEMBER 10, 2024 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8308 RH

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 

2003. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8308 RH

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 ‘‘Nutria Eradication 

5 and Control Reauthorization Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NUTRIA ERADICATION AND 

7 CONTROL ACT OF 2003. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(e) of the Nutria Eradi9 cation and Control Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 8102(e)) is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘2025’’ and inserting ‘‘2030’’. 

11 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 3(a) of the 

12 Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 

13 8102(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘ ‘Secretary’),’’ and in14 serting ‘‘ ‘Secretary’)’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Union Calendar No. 694 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8308 

[Report No. 118–849] 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control 

Act of 2003. 

DECEMBER 10, 2024 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Dixon, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 313]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of two counts of felony murder and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. Defendant did not object to admission of videotapes of the conditional examination of a prosecution witness, thereby failing to preserve for our review his contention that the videotapes were inadmissible because they were not certified and filed pursuant to CPL 660.60 (2) *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Davis,*213 AD2d 665; *People v Espinal,*183 AD2d 407, *lv denied*80 NY2d 830; *People v Williams,*178 AD2d 767, 768, *Iv denied*79 NY2d 1009). Likewise, by failing to raise the issue of repugnancy before the jury was discharged, defendant failed to preserve that issue for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Satloff,*56 NY2d 745, 746, *rearg denied*57 NY2d 674; *cf, People v Alfaro,*66 NY2d 985, 987). In any event, that issue lacks merit. Although defendant was acquitted of robbery in the first degree, County Court properly instructed the jury that it could consider attempted robbery as a predicate felony for felony murder *(see, People v Crum,*160 AD2d 892, 893; *People v Gibson,*65 AD2d 235, 238-240, *lv denied*46 NY2d 1080, *cert denied*444 US 861). There was a reasonable view of the evidence to support the conclusion that defendant and his accomplice attempted to, but did not, commit robbery, and thus that offense was properly submitted to the jury as a predicate felony even *953though the indictment did not charge defendant with that offense *(see, People v Wroblewski,*109 AD2d 39, 44, *affd*67 NY2d 933, *cert denied*479 US 845).

Lastly, we conclude that imposition of concurrent terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life was, in the circumstances of this case, not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Report of UpSnap, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter van Hierden, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard von Gnechten, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Peter van Hierden
Peter van Hierden
Chief Executive Officer

Dated: December 21, 2009/s/ Richard A. von Gnechten
Richard A. von Gnechten
Chief Financial Officer

Dated: December 21, 2009
#### John McMahon, *Appellant, v.*The Port Henry Iron Ore Company of Lake Champlain, *Respondent.*

Reargument ordered. Bookes, J:, not acting.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Travelers Insurance Company, Appellant, and Sonia Kelly, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 302]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in dismissing the petition for a stay of arbitration. Because respondent received insurance proceeds of $10,000 from the insurer of the tortfeasor’s vehicle, that vehicle was not uninsured and the uninsured motorists coverage provided by petitioner did not apply *(see,*Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [1]; *StateWide Ins. Co. v Curry,*43 NY2d 298, 302-303). Thus, respondent’s demand for arbitration of the uninsured motorists claim should have been stayed. The record is devoid of proof that the policy insuring the vehicle driven by respondent provided supplementary uninsured motorists coverage, or underinsurance, and the demand for arbitration makes no claim for underinsurance coverage. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Arbitration.) Present—Green, J. P., Law-ton, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
No. 56006.

protests 153079-K, etc. (New York).

#### Air Clearance Ass’n, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Elizabeth Benedict, *Executrix, etc.*

Decree of surrogate reversed, with costs against executrix personally, and matter remitted to surrogate for accounting in accordance with opinion. Opinion by Learned, P. J.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5019 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

340 South Loudon Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ‘‘United 

States Representative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. VAN HOLLEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 340 South Loudon Avenue in Baltimore, 

Maryland, as the ‘‘United States Representative Elijah 

E. Cummings Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE ELIJAH E. 

4 CUMMINGS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 340 South Loudon Avenue in 

7 Baltimore, Maryland, shall be known and designated as 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5019 IS

1 the ‘‘United States Representative Elijah E. Cummings 

2 Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘United States Rep7 resentative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8441 

To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from using Federal funds 

to establish the ICE Secure Docket Card program and to prohibit the 

use of documentation issued in connection with immigration proceedings 

to establish eligibility for Federal public benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2024 

Mr. NEHLS (for himself and Mr. DONALDS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition 

to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from using 

Federal funds to establish the ICE Secure Docket Card 

program and to prohibit the use of documentation issued 

in connection with immigration proceedings to establish 

eligibility for Federal public benefits. 

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 ‘‘No Taxpayer Funds 

5 for Illegal Immigrant Identity Cards Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8441 IH

1 SEC. 2. PURPOSES. 

2 The purposes of this Act are to prohibit the Secretary 

3 of Homeland Security from using Federal funds to estab4 lish the ICE Secure Docket Card program or any other 

5 Federal program that issues free identity cards to aliens 

6 who are unlawfully present in the United States. 

7 SEC. 3. PROHIBITIONS. 

8 (a) ICE SECURE DOCKET CARD.—Notwithstanding 

9 any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be used 

10 to establish, implement, or otherwise support the activities 

11 of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Se12 cure Docket Card program or of any other similar pro13 gram of the Department of Homeland Security. 

14 (b) PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION.—No documentation, 

15 in any form, which was issued for the primary purpose 

16 of providing access to information regarding the status of 

17 an individual’s immigration proceedings, may be used as 

18 proof of identification for the purpose of establishing eligi19 bility for any Federal public benefit (as defined in section 

20 401(c) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor21 tunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611(c))). 

22 SEC. 4. REPORT. 

23 Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment 

24 of this Act, the Inspector General of the Department of 

25 Homeland Security shall submit a report to the Committee 

26 on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8441 IH

1 Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security of the 

2 House of Representatives that describes the establish3 ment, operation, and any costs associated with the ICE 

4 Secure Docket Card program or any other Federal pro5 gram that issues free identity cards to aliens who are un6 lawfully present in the United States. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.b

I, Marc N. Teal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Boston Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

1. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
3. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

1. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

1. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|December 6, 2005 | /s/ Marc N. Teal       
|---------------- | -----------------------
|                 | Marc N. Teal           
|                 | Chief Financial Officer
|                 |
EXHIBIT 11

                 Statement of Computation of Per Share Earnings

             Set forth below is the basis for the computation of earnings per
share for periods shown.

                                                  Years Ended December 31,

                                        2003             2002           2001
                                        ----             ----           ----
Earnings (loss) Per Common Share

Basic                                 $   0.17        $  (0.78)      $  (0.99)

Average Shares Outstanding             822,250         822,250        822,250

Diluted                               $   0.17        $  (0.78)      $  (0.99)

Average Shares Outstanding             822,250         822,250        822,250
Case NTó. 9,832.

#### MORRIS v. HURST.

[1 Wash. C. C. 433.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

April Term, 1806.

Assumpsit — Account—Debit and Ceedit Entries —For whom Evidence.

1. In an action of assumpsit, if one party relies upon an account delivered by the other party, without other proof to establish his demand; the party producing the account may discharge himself, by relying on the items of credit, on the other side of the account.

2. If the credit side of an account is taken to charge the person who delivered it, the items on the debit side must also be admitted as proved by the account.

This cause came on under a rule for a new trial, on the ground of surprise, and misdirection. The plaintiff, having delivered in an account before bringing the action, in which many years transactions between the parties were included, to a considerable amount; the plaintiff only proved one item, of a modern date, to the amount of about £230, being rents received by the defendant, which belonged to the plaintiff. The defendant attempted to meet this demand, by selecting out of the account, a credit to a larger amount, but without attempting to prove it; relying on it, as an admission by the plaintiff. The court informed the counsel, at the trial, that if he relied upon the credit side of that account, as evidence against the plaintiff, he must admit the debit side, unless he could falsify it by evidence. Upon this, the counsel let the juiy go out, who found the £230, with interest, which .had been established.

M. Levy, now contended,

that after receiving the account, he expected the plaintiff would be obliged to go through the whole; and that he could not pick out one item, and *822upon proving it, recover to that amount; that therefore he was surprised at the trial. (2) That though a defendant may, by his answer, charge himself, his answer is not always sufficient to discharge him; and therefore, the account rendered, was good evidence against; but not for the plaintiff. Gilb. Ev. 152; 2 Yern. 194.

1

 [Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard Peters, Jr., Esq.]

BY THE COURT.

If a man is caned upon to render an account for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to establish a demand aginst the defendant, if he is obliged to rely upon this statement to charge him; the defendant is entitled to be discharged by it. If he is called upon to state, whether a particular sum is not due, and the defendant states, that it was to be paid on a condition not performed, you must take the acknowledgment altogether. An account is composed of items, and they are placed on the debit and credit side. If the defendant produces the account, you can no more take the items on the credit side to charge him, and reject the • debits; than, in the case first supposed, you can take the acknowledgment of what was agreed to be paid, and reject what he states, with respect to the condition. The verdict therefore was right. Rule discharged.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8205 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8205

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 12, 2024

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit fraud in connection 
                           with posting bail.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our 
Streets Act''.

SEC. 2. FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH POSTING BAIL.

    Section 1033(f)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
by inserting before the comma the following: ``(including the posting 
of monetary bail, criminal bail bonds, and Federal immigration bail 
bonds)''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 25, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
PMN Sanitized file of Ocular tissue study
No. 53079.

#### Chas. H. Asche & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 110111-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

By virtue of the decision in *United States*v. *American Viscose Corporation*(30 C. C. P. A. 240, C. A. D. 239), the protests were dismissed.
No. 56020.

protests 129669-K and 161142-K (Los Angeles).

#### California Wines, Ltd., and A. Hirschberg *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cites in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.