alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Wilfredo DeJesus, Appellant, v Liz Tinoco, Respondent.

[699 NYS2d 905]

—In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.), dated May 6, 1998, which, after a hearing, *inter alia,*denied his application for visitation.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which directed that a re-application for visitation rights must be accompanied by proof of participation in additional psychiatric therapy; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contentions, the acts of domestic violence perpetrated against the mother demonstrated that he possessed a character which is ill-suited to the difficult task of providing moral and intellectual guidance to the infant child *(see, Matter of Irwin v Schmidt,*236 AD2d 401, 402; *Matter of Rohan v Rohan,*213 AD2d 804, 806). Accordingly, based upon the evidence of the father’s physical and verbal abuse of the mother, the Family Court’s denial of the petition for visitation, with leave to renew, had a sound basis and therefore should not be disturbed *(see, Matter of Chiofalo v Bertolino,*233 AD2d 440).

*309However, since a court may not compel a party to undergo therapy as a precondition for a re-application for visitation rights (see, *Matter of Cooper v Wolkowitz,*215 AD2d 380; *Jones v Jones,*185 AD2d 228, 230; *Nacson v Nacson,*166 AD2d 510), the order must be modified accordingly (see, *Nacson v Nacson, supra,*at 511). Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.
Mr. John S. Hovenga OpinionNo. C- 207

ExecutiveDirector Board of Regents Re: Whether the Board of State 'Teachers

Colleges Regents of the State Austin, Texas Teachers Collegeshave the authority to make a long term lease with the Federal Government Dear Mr. Hovenga: on state-owned property. Attached to your letter requestingan opinion from this office was a proposed 49 year lease of state-ownedland between the State of Texas, acting by and thtiough the Board of Regents of the State Teachers Colleges in behalf of Stephen F. Austin State College,and the United States of America. With regard to this proposed lease you ask the followingquestion:

"Does the Board of Regents of the State Teachers Collegeshave the authority to make a long term lease with t$e Federal Government on State-owned

property? The Board of Regents, as an agency of the State,may make only such contractson behalf of the State as it has been authorizedby law to make. Fort Worth Cavalry Club v. Sheppard, 125 Tex. 339, 83 S.W.2d 660 TIC93510 Att G 1 L tt oiion No. MS 75 (1953). The Board 0; Reg~%~yofe~~Sta~e gacieis Colleges is empdwef&dand ziuthopieed to:.con$truct.

ahd.&quipbuildings,~purcha,se

supplies,and acquire land for the use and benefit of any state teachers college. Aptlcles 2647 and 2647b, V.C.S. And It is authorizedto constructor acquire through funds or loans to be obtained from the United States Governmentor one Of its agencies or from any other source the buildingsdescribed in Article 2603~,Vernon's Civil Statutes,and pledge the revenues of said buildings to the payment of bonds or notes Issued for the '.constructlon

or acquisitionof such buildings. See also Article 2909a, Vernon's Civil Statutes,providing for the erectionand equipmentof dormftories,cottages,and stadiums,and the pledging of the revenues therefromfor the payment thereof. To the extent that the statutesauthorize,therefore,the Board of Regentsmay acquire title both to ticsal property and personaltyfor the use and benefit of the State Teachers Colleges.

-1003-Mr. John 5. Hovenga,page 2 (C- 207 )

The disposition which the Legl.slature has of State-ownedland

_ Is a matter over - . - -_ excIu*Ivecontrol. Lorlno v. crawfora Packing Company, 142 Tex. 51, 175 S.W.2d 410 (19431. 34 T J Publi Lands, Sec. 25. There is no general law'whlche%tuh%- any &ate TeachersCollege or the Board of Regents of the State Teachers Colleges to dispose of State-ownedland. A leasehold of more than one year has been held to be a dispositionof real estate. Article 1588, V.C.S.; Robertson v. Scott, 141 Tex. 374, 172 S.W.2d 478 (1943);Carrier v. McDonald, 218 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.Civ.App., lg@), Hence9 we must h Id that no general authorityexists. State v. Steck Co., 236 i.W.2d 866 (Tex,Civ. App. 1951, error re?".)
SUMMARY The Board of Regents of the State Teachers Collegesdoes not have the authorityto make a leaseholdof more than one year of State-owned property.
Yours very truly,
WAGGONER CARR Attorney General

1RWnsj:mk.h APPROVEiDg OPINION COMMITTEE By: Assistant

W. V. Geppert, Chairman J. C. Davis George Gray H. Grady Chandler ' Howard Fender
APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEYGENERAL BY: Stanton Stone

-1004-
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

 

I, Sumito Mulchandani, certify that:

 

(a)                                 A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from April 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 has been made under my supervision.

 

(b)                                 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.

 

 

Dated March 21, 2017

 
|   | /s/  Sumito Mulchandani       |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | Sumito Mulchandani                      |
|   | Assistant Treasurer of                  |
|   | Ford Motor Credit Company   LLC,        |
|   | as Servicer of Ford Credit   Auto Owner |
|   | Trust 2016-B                            |

 

----
No. 44322.

#### Protests 880171-G, etc., of Italian Felt & Straw Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8452)

Entry No. B 1107, etc.

#### J. G. Philen, Jr., Company *v.*United States

(Decided June 17, 1955)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

JohNsoN, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED:

> 1. That the merchandise covered by these appeals consists of curled white steamed tula ixtle waste, picked, and that such merchandise was exported from Mexico to the United States during the period from January 25, 1946 to February 27, 1946, inclusive;

> 2. That on or about the respective dates of exportation herein and at all other times material herein such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities, and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption therein or for export to the United States; that such or similar imported mer*524chandise was not at the aforesaid times and under the aforesaid conditions freely offered in the United States for sale for domestic consumption therein; and that cost of production, as defined in Section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis of appraisement of the involved merchandise;

> 3. That the values on the attached schedule comprise (a) the cost of materials, labor and all other manufacturing costs as of the time prescribed by Section 402 (f) (1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, (b) the usual general expenses (not less than 10 per cent of such cost), (c) the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, and (d) an addition for profit not less than 8 per centum of the sum of items (a) and (b) above; and that the said addition for profit in the case of merchandise of the same general character as the involved merchandise, by manufacturers in the country of exportation who were engaged in the manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind;

> 4. That said appeals for reappraisement may be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were as follows:

> *Reappraisement No. United States currency per pound net, packed*

> 176785-A 10)4 cents

> 176786-A *10%*cents

> 176787-A 10)4 cents

> 176788-A *10%*cents

> 176790-A *10%*cents

> 176789-A 13 cents

> 176891-A 13 cents

> 176792-A 13 cents

> 176793-A 13 cents

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case No. 10,000.

#### In re MYRICK.

[3 N. B. R. 156;

(Quarto. 38).] 1

District Court, S. D. Georgia.

1869.

Internal Revenue — Stamp Dutt — Power to Represent Creditor in Bankruptcy — Proof of Claim — Correction of Errors.

1. A power to represent a creditor in bankruptcy is not subject to stamp duty by existing laws.

2. *A*creditor may correct clerical errors in his proof of claim at any time before final dividend.

[This case was previously heard upon the question of the interest of the bankrupt in certain real estate under the will of John Edmondson, the bankrupt’s father in law, Case No. 9,999.] At the second general meeting of the creditors of Benjamin H. Myrick, bankrupt, on the 16th day of February, 1869, the assignee, in the absence of a majority of the creditors, determined on a dividend; and preparatory to computing the- same, William McKinley, attorney for John Wood, a junior creditor, objected to the proofs of debt filed in favor of David Bateman and George L. Denning, respectively, and moved that they be rejected as not duly proved, because the proofs had been made by Lucilius H. Briscoe, under powers of attorney which were void for the want of the proper revenue stamps. To remedy the defect, if defect it was, Col. Briscoe moved to affix the proper stamps instanter; but contended that the law did not require a stamp at the date of the- powers. Col. Briscoe also moved to fill two blanks that' were not filled at the execution of one of the proofs. This proof had been made out on a printed blank, and the blank place left for the name of the county of his residence, and also the name of the agent proving the claim, had-been omitted in one place only, but appeared in every other proper place throughout the proof. The motion to fill these two blanks was resisted by Col. McKinley.

By ALEXANDER G. MURRAY, Register:

The revenue laws of the United States, prior to March, 1867, did require such papers to be stamped; but since the removal of stamp duty from judicial proceedings by congress, in March, 1867 [14 Stat. 517], a power to represent a creditor in bankruptcy (being a paper which is part and parcel of bankrupt proceedings, and is required to be filed in the case as part of the record), dated in October, 1868, does not require a stamp. As to the right to remedy technical errors or omissions, or correct clerical errors, the law gives a creditor the right to prove his claim at any time after the commencement of proceedings, and before final dividend; and so long as the right to prove continues, the right to correct a clerical omission in a proof filed should not be denied. If a proof on file were totally defective, the party would have the right to file anew. The just and fair distribution of the assets of a bankrupt according to law. should not be defeated on mere technicalities.

1

 [Reprinted by permission.]

ERSKINB, District Judge.

I have carefully examined the matter certified for review in the case of Benjamin H. Myrick, and I am of the opinion that the decision of the register is correct, and I approve it. The clerk will certify the same to Register Murray.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of
American Physicians Capital, Inc. (the "Company"), for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      (1) The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q (the "Report") for
the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

Date:  November 9, 2005

/s/ R. Kevin Clinton
----------------------------------------
R. Kevin Clinton
President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Frank H. Freund
----------------------------------------
Frank H. Freund
Senior Executive Vice President, Treasurer
and Chief Financial Officer
No. 74-5864.

#### Resnick *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2014078EN.01000802.xml

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Free v OHIM — Noble Gaming (FREEVOLUTION TM)

(Case T-127/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark FREEVOLUTION TM - Earlier national figurative mark free LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX and earlier national word marks FREE and FREE MOBILE - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 78/16

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Free SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Coursin, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Meglar, agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Noble Gaming Ltd (Prague, Czech Republic)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2011 (Case R 2326/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Free SAS and Noble Gaming Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Free SAS to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Free SAS to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1

            PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Donald R. Mayer, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of WorldNet, Inc.
of Nevada;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
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 small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.    The small business issuer'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
small business issuer 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

    (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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

                                  /s/ Donald R. Mayer
Date: August 2, 2004             ____________________________________________
                                 Donald R. Mayer, Principal Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 99.2

                     Form of Section 906 Certification

               CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

                    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of SaiphT Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the
"Report"), I, Jason Daggett, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby 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 results of operations
     of the Company.


/s/ Jason Daggett
Jason Daggett
Principal Financial Officer

Date:  May 15, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9579]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 10869]


West Virginia Disaster Number WV-00005

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of West 
Virginia (FEMA-1696-DR), dated 05/01/2007.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides.
    Incident Period: 04/14/2007 through 04/18/2007.

DATES: Effective Date: 05/10/2007.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/02/2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of West 
Virginia 05/01/2007, is hereby amended to include the following areas 
as adversely affected by the disaster.
    Primary Counties: Barbour, Gilmer, Grant, Hardy, Lewis, Mcdowell, 
Pendleton, Pocahontas, Putnam, Upshur, Webster.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-9579 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**TKP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0303 ROBERT MATTHEW WITTAL ,

Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA ,

Respondent and Appellee . **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee ’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including May 14 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve its response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 10 2023

04/10/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0303
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Allen MAISE.

No. 99-KK-0051.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1999.

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 99KW-0024; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “K”, No. 98-3444.

Stay order recalled. Writ granted. Rulings of the court of appeal are 'vacated and set aside. Rulings of the trial court are reinstated. Defendant may reurge these issues on appeal in the event of conviction.

CALOGERO, C.J., dissents.

LEMMON, J.,

concurs. Since the disputed evidence has already been presented to the jury and the other crimes evidence issue is very close, I conclude the trial should continue and the issue can be thoroughly reviewed on appeal if there is a

conviction.

JOHNSON, J.

would deny in part, the defendant’s statement to the parole officer should be suppressed. I would grant and set aside the court of appeal’s ruling on the Prieur evidence.

TRAYLOR, J., not on panel.
# C_2013079EN.01000602.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 14 December 2012 — Lyreco Belgium NV v Sophie Rogiers

(Case C-588/12)

2013/C 79/11

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lyreco Belgium NV

Applicant:

Defendant: Sophie Rogiers

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the provisions of Clause 1 and Clause 2, paragraph 4, of the framework agreement concluded on 14 December 1995 by the general cross-industry organisations, UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, on parental leave, contained in the Annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC (1) of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, preclude the protective award which is payable to the worker who was bound to his employer by a full-time employment contract of indefinite duration, and whose employment contract is terminated unilaterally by that employer without urgent cause or sufficient ground during a period of reduction of working hours, on the grounds of the taking of parental leave, by 20 % or 50 %, from being calculated with reference to the salary payable during that period of reduction, where the same worker would be entitled to a protective award calculated by reference to the full-time salary if he had reduced his working hours by 100 %[?]

1

---

(1)  OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4.

1

---