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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                              58
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      350
<ALLOWANCES>                                        43
<INVENTORY>                                        335
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1356
<PP&E>                                             299
<DEPRECIATION>                                     259
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2005
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           852
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1497)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1398
<SALES>                                            959
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   959
<CGS>                                              889
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      327
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (12)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    248
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                248
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       248
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AnnualStatementas toCompliance

FortheYearEndedDecember31,2021

 

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.,

Series2016-GC37

 

PursuanttoSection3.01(32)oftheSubservicingAgreementgoverningthereferencedtransaction(the “Servicing Agreement”), Ihereby attestthat:

 

|   | i. | A review of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during theperiodhas been made under my supervision. |   |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

 

|   | ii. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer hasfulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this Subservicing Agreementthroughout the period and no default by the Subservicer under the SubservicingAgreementhas occurredand is continuing. |   |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

 

Berkadia,

 

 

Mark E. McCool

President

February10,2022

 

 

 

 

Inv.823 Lib. A
#### CORNHUSKER CASUALTY COMPANY, a Nebraska corporation, Plaintiff, v. O’NEILL PLUMBING COMPANY, a Washington corporation, Defendant—Appellant, Mora Inc., Defendant—Appellee. Cornhusker Casualty Company, a Nebraska corporation, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. O’Neill Plumbing Company, a Washington corporation; Mora Inc., Defendants—Appellees.

Nos. 04-35436, 04-35530.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted on Briefs July 11, 2005.*

Decided July 28, 2005.

*763William E. Pierson, Jr., Esq., Cozen O’Connor, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff.

Michael William Brown, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

John G. Fritts, Miren C. First, Esq., Wilson Smith Cochran & Dickerson, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: HUG, PAEZ, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

O’Neill Plumbing Co. and Cornhusker Casualty Co. both appeal the district court’s order dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On *de novo*review, *see Providence Health Plan v. McDowell,*385 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.2004) (as amended), we affirm.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. *See also Glacier Gen. Assurance Co. v. Gordon Symons Co.,*631 F.2d 131, 133 (9th Cir.1980). The real party in interest in a diversity case is determined according to state law. *See id.*at 133-34; *Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes,*358 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir.2004) (as amended). As we have previously held, the real party in interest in an insurance subrogation action under Washington law is the insured party. 358 F.3d at 1094-95. Because the insured parties (the Zacatecas companies), like O’Neill and Mora, are Washington companies, there is no diversity among the parties, and we lack subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, we cannot consider the merits of the claim, and we do not rule on Mora’s recently submitted Motion to Strike Report of Joy Veranth.

The district court’s order dismissing the case for want of subject matter jurisdiction is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 31.1
                                                                    ------------

                        SECTION 302 CERTIFICATion OF CEO

I, David Smith, Chief Executive Officer of Medinex Systems, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Medinex Systems, 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(s)  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:

         a) 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;

         b) 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

         c)  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

5. The registrant's other certifying  officer(s) 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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

         a) 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

         b) 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.


/s/ David Smith
---------------
David Smith
Chief Executive Officer

March 11, 2004
#### Rudolph SMITH, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-7080.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 25, 2005.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of claimant-appellant’s unopposed motion to voluntarily withdraw this appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

*359(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 4.1

Resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on January 19, 1999
establishing the Plan:

               RESOLVED that it would be in the best interest of the Company to,
          and the Board hereby does, adopt a policy with regard to ownership of
          shares of Company stock by outside members of the Board; and

               RESOLVED FURTHER that pursuant to such policy: (i) 1,000 shares
          of Aztec stock, or if less, Aztec shares having a market value of
          $15,000.00, shall be granted to each new outside board member upon his
          or her election to the Board, whether such election is held by the
          Board during a fiscal year or is held by the shareholders of the
          Company at a meeting called for the purpose of electing directors,
          (ii) 500 shares of Aztec stock shall be granted to each outside member
          of the board after each annual meeting of the shareholders after which
          he or she continues to serve on the Board, until each board member has
          been granted 5,000 shares, inclusive of shares, if any, granted under
          (i) above, and (iii) each member of the Board shall be required during
          his or her tenure on the Board to hold a number of shares of Aztec
          stock that is at least equal to one-half the number of shares obtained
          through the direct stock grants made pursuant to (i) and (ii) above.
[Cite as State Farm Ins. v. Univ. of Akron, 2010-Ohio-3641.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

STATE FARM INSURANCE 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

UNIVERSITY OF AKRON 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-01395-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL

{¶ 1} On January 21, 2010, this court issued an entry ordering plaintiff entity to 

obtain counsel to proceed with this claim, to file a notice of appearance, and an 

amended complaint with this court. Plaintiff entity was also ordered to submit the 

$25.00 filing fee or a poverty statement or face dismissal of its case. Plaintiff entity has 

failed to comply with the court orders. Therefore, plaintiff entity’s case is DISMISSED 

without prejudice .3pursuant to Civ.R. 41. The court shall absorb the costs of this case. 

 ________________________________ 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 
Case No. 2010-01395-AD - 2 - ENTRY

State Farm Insurance 

Kay Edgcomb 

P.O. Box 2371 

Bloomington, Illinois 61702-2371 

DRB/laa 

Filed 3/19/10 

Sent to S.C. reporter 8/6/10
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 22, 2022

No. 04-22-00157-CV

Jim SCHMIDT individually and D/B/A The Goat Company and The Wildlife Ranch,

Appellants

v.

Dr. Charles W. GRAHAM, DVM and Tyler Graham d/b/a, Hamilton Commission Company, 

Hamilton Commission Company LLC, and Kristen Mcfarlin.,

Appellees

From the 452nd District Court, Mason County, Texas

Trial Court No. 185791

Stephen Ellis, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record and reporter’s record in this appeal were due on April 15, 2022. TEX.

R. APP. P. 35.1. The clerk’s record was timely filed. On April 18, 2022, the official court 

reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record filed a notification of late record, stating 

that appellant has failed to (1) request preparation of the reporter’s record in writing and (2) pay 

or make satisfactory arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the reporter’s record. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 35.3(b).

We therefore ORDER appellant to file written proof in this court no later than ten (10) 

days after the date of this order showing that: (1) he has requested that the official court reporter 

prepare the reporter’s record in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6; and 

(2) either the court reporter’s fee for preparation of the reporter’s record has been paid or 

satisfactory payment arrangements have been made, or appellant is entitled to appeal without 

paying the fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6, 20.1(a); TEX. R. CIV. P. 145.

If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of April, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
No. 47631.

#### Protest 53420-K of Carlbom Harness Store (Minneapolis).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

When the case was called for trial counsel for the Government moved that the protest be dismissed for insufficiency and failure of *429compliance with section 614, Tariff Act of 1930. The court found that the protest does not “distinctly and specifically” set forth the reasons for the objection to the decision of the collector, nor was any of the necessary information given. As the protest does not comply with the requirements of section 514, the motion to dismiss was granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000102438
<NAME> USP REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,746,502
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  717,981
<ALLOWANCES>                                   213,114
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,463,439
<PP&E>                                      34,663,342
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,514,427
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,612,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          794,718
<BONDS>                                      9,275,547
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,880,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,662,089
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,612,354
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,107,610
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  463,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               132,860
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             200,055
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                311,308
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            311,308
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   311,308
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-70237 and 333-63530 of InterCept, Inc. onForm S-8 of our reports dated March 31, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements of InterCept, Inc. as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002, (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphsconcerning the Company’s change in its method of accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets to conform to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” and concerning theapplication of procedures relating to certain disclosures and reclassifications of financial statement amounts related to the 2001 and 2000 financial statements that were audited by other auditors who have ceased operations and for which we haveexpressed no opinion or other form of assurance other than with respect to such disclosures or reclassifications) and to the 2002 financial statement schedule, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of InterCept, Inc. for the year endedDecember 31, 2002. 

 

/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Atlanta, Georgia 

March 31, 2003
#### In re Dale FLANDERS and Peter S. Whitney.

No. 05-1397.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 26, 2005.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the parties’ joint motion to remand the case to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for further proceedings,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 28.2
                          ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

                         CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA, N.A.


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

                       Chase Manhattan Owner Trust 1998-A

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


      The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Chase Manhattan Bank
USA, N.A. ("Chase USA"), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing
Agreement dated as of February 1, 1998 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") by
and between Chase USA and Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, as
trustee (the "Trustee"), does hereby certify that:

1.         A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from
      January 1, 1999 until December 31, 1999 was conducted under my
      supervision.

2.         Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge,
      fully performed in all material respects all its obligations, under the
      Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout such period and no material
      default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or is
      continuing except as set forth in paragraph 3 below.

3.         None.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 15th day of March 2000.

                                          /s/ Keith Schuck
                                          -------------------------------
                                          Keith Schuck
                                          Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
registrant's  financial  statements  as of and for the nine month  period  ended
January 1, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements:
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                          1,612,139
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                     2,240,646
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                4,136,473
<PP&E>                                          3,109,644
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,890,799)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  5,596,812
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,643,784
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          153,175
<OTHER-SE>                                      1,237,460
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    5,596,812
<SALES>                                        11,701,838
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               11,701,838
<CGS>                                           6,845,172
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   6,845,172
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                5,290,680
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (42,700)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (429,434)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (429,434)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (429,434)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.04)


</TABLE>
No. 65761.

#### Fabry Associates, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/33799 (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wall-hung furniture similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fabry Associates, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 88, C.D. 2203), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.