alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8446)

Entry Nos. 963375; 964908; 778984.

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

(Decided June 8, 1955)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

*515Lawrence, Judge:

There was no appearance on behalf of the appealing party when the above-enumerated appeals for a reap-praisement were called for hearing.

Rule 5 of the rules of this court provides that—

> * * * Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it shall be deemed submitted and shall be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

In conformity with the requirements of the rule, I have examined the record in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 6216.

#### COTTON YARDMEN’S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION No. 2 vs. ARMSTRONG DONALDSON.

Syllabus.

Where unknown to the principal, the agent and the other party-are to divide the profits of a transaction made on behalf o£ said principal, the latter may repudiate the transaction and recover what he 'itas paid on account thereof.

*85Opinion and decree, December 21st, 1914.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division-“A,” No. 105,596. Honorable T. C. W. Ellis, Judge;

Ellis & Kaiser, for plaintiff and appellant.

O. Schreiber, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the 'Court as follows:

From the evidence, oral and documentary, herein introduced by the defendant, it appears that on June 11th, 1913, one Alexander Paul, acting as agent for the plaintiff, agreed to buy of defendant for the price of $3,500, certain property then belonging to the Succession of Posey, and which the defendant was to purchase from said succession for $2,400; the difference between the two prices to be divided between the defendant and the said Paul, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff gave Paul $300 to deposit on the transaction, of which amount Paul retained $100 and gave defendant $200; the latter giving a receipt for the full $300, which was so reported to the association.

The transaction thus evidenced was clearly’ contra bonos mores, and the plaintiff which was to be the innocent victim thereof is entitled to the return of the money which it deposited with defendant.

It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment appealed from be reversed, and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, the Cotton Yardmen’s Benevolent Association, No. 2, and against the defendant, Armstrong Donaldson, for the full sum of two hundred dollars with, legal interest from judicial demand until paid and all costs of both Courts.
#### Douglas W. Seaman et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Walter Fedourich et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Broome County,

April 12, 1966.

*874
      *Willard E. Pierce*for plaintiffs. *Stuart M. Pearis, Corporation*Counsel, for defendants.

Robert W. Sloan, J.

The defendants, the Common Council and Mayor of the City of Binghamton, seek a judicial declaration that Local Law No. 5 for the year 1966, is in full compliance with our decision of July 22,1965 *(Seaman*v. *Fedourich,*47 Misc 2d 26) and presents a districting plan which meets constitutional requirements of equal representation. The plaintiffs join in the prayer for approval.

The local law, if and when adopted by public referendum, creates nine councilmanic districts with a councilman to be elected from each district at the primary and general elections held in 1967, to take office January 1, 1968 for a term of four years.

The City of Binghamton has a population of 75,941 (1960 Federal census), and the mean figure for each of the nine council-manic districts is 8,438. The population of each district and the deviation from this norm under Local Law No. 5 is as follows:

Councilmanic

Districts Total Population Deviation First ........ ......... 8,369 - .82% Second ...... ......... 8,831 +4.66% Third........ ......... 8,110 -3.89% Fourth ...... ......... 8,252 -2.2% Fifth........ ......... 8,586 +1.75% Sixth........ ......... 8,290 -1.75% Seventh .... ......... 8,831 +4.66% Eighth....... ......... 8,624 +2.2% Ninth ....... ......... 8,048 -4.62%

From the table set forth above it is clear that the deviation from the representational norm is less than 5% in each district; that the weight of representation enjoyed by an inhabitant of the least populous of the proposed districts (Ninth District, population 8,048) is less than 10% greater than that of an inhabitant of the most populous (Second and Seventh Districts, *8758,831 each) with a population variance ratio of 1.097 : 1; that it will take the votes from districts having at least 54.08% of the population (First, Third, Fourth, Sixth and Ninth Districts) to elect a majority of the councilmen, and thus legislation either adopted or defeated by the Common Council will truly represent the will of a majority of the populace expressed through the votes of their elected representatives.

The population deviations we point to are substantially justified by the deviations in population and shape of the census enumeration districts used, of necessity, in the formation of the proposed districts, and the proper use, in this instance, of well-known geographic monuments as the boundaries thereof. In any event, the deviations are minimal and well within constitutional requirements of equal representation.

We find that the defendants have fully complied with our order, and that Local Law No. 5 meets all requirements of equal representation under the New York State and Federal Constitutions and is free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination.

We retain jurisdiction of this action and will entertain an application by any party for such other and further relief as shall be just and proper.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Employment Opportunities for Women as Secretaries, Stenographers, Typists, and as Office-Machine Operators and Cashiers

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					,	Barber, Mildred S. (Mildred Sheridan)					 and 	Tucker, Nora R. 						*Employment Opportunities for Women as Secretaries, Stenographers, Typists, and as Office-Machine Operators and Cashiers : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 263*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1957,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5534,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Before the Third Division,

October 19, 1942

No. 47653.

#### Protest 774552-G/83754 of Jay W. Rapp & Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) certain of the merchandise was held entitled to free entry undei paragraph 1669 and some was held dutiable as drugs advanced in value or condition at 10 percent under paragraph 34, in accordance with stipulation of counsel.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, of Caneum, 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; andc.
    
    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;
 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 the 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; andb.
    
    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.Date: August 18, 2008
 /s/ Suki Mudan

Suki Mudan, President(Principal Executive Officer)
No. 47037.

#### Protests 867700-G, etc., of Ash Fur Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2012235EN.01000604.xml

| 4.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) lodged on 4 May 2012 — Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Argeș v SC Volksbank România SA, SC Volksbank România SA — Sucursala Pitești, Alin Iulian Matei, Petruța Florentina Matei

(Case C-236/12)

2012/C 235/12

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunalul Argeș

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Argeș

Appellant:

Respondents: SC Volksbank România SA, SC Volksbank România SA — Sucursala Pitești, Alin Iulian Matei, Petruța Florentina Matei

Respondents:

Question referred

Question referred

Having regard to the fact that, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) assessment of the unfair nature of contractual terms must relate neither to the definition of the main subject-matter of the agreement nor to the adequacy [sic] of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied in exchange, on the other, in so far as these terms are in plain intelligible language,

1

sic

and

given that, under Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008/48/EC, (2) the definition provided in Article 3(g) of that directive of ‘the total cost of the credit to the consumer’, which includes all the fees which the consumer is required to pay in connection with the credit agreement, does not apply for the purposes of determining the subject-matter of a credit agreement secured by a mortgage,

2

can the concepts of ‘main subject-matter’ and/or of ‘price’, to which Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC refers, be interpreted as also covering, among the elements which make up the consideration owed to the credit institution, the global effective annual rate of a credit agreement, formed in particular of the interest rate, whether fixed or variable, the bank charges and other costs included and defined in the agreement?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993, L 95, p. 29).

1

(2)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008, L 133, p. 66).

2

---
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 21, 2010

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-12618

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-00337-CR-1-KD-B

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TOMMIE LEE MITCHELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

_________________________

(June 21, 2010)

Before EDMONDSON, BIRCH and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Paul D. Brown, appointed counsel for Tommie Lee Mitchell, has filed a
motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit is

correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable

issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Mitchell’s

conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DUSTIN RAYMOND ANDREJCO

- JONES,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 402 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of April, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-121013 and333-102896), Form S-4 (No. 333-116378) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-119094, 333-118058, 333-106383, 333-66346 and 333-43612) of RITA Medical Systems, Inc. of our report dated March 28, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appearsin this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

March 28, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001056758
<NAME> NEBRASKA BOOK COMPANY, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,059,660
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,004,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                   165,899
<INVENTORY>                                 49,878,561
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            76,626,573
<PP&E>                                      31,212,534
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,024,049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             139,690,356
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,156,391
<BONDS>                                    163,612,489
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                 (47,546,964)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               139,690,356
<SALES>                                    217,516,312
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           217,516,312
<CGS>                                      137,709,320
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              137,709,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            58,854,021
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               134,661
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          17,157,370
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,660,940
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,603,657
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,057,283
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,057,283
<EPS-BASIC>                                   10,573
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   10,573


</TABLE>
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43188

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL LAWRENCE CONLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 367

Filed: February 2, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Timothy Hansen, District Judge. 

Appeal from order revoking probation, dismissed. 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Michael Lawrence Conley pled guilty to burglary. I.C. § 18-1401. In exchange for his 

guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Conley to a unified 

term of eight years, with a minmum period of confinement of two years. However, the district 

court suspended the sentence and placed Conley on probation. Thereafter, Conley admitted to 

violating the terms of his probation. The district court revoked probation, but retained 

jurisdiction and sent Conley to participate in the rider program. Conley appealed. While this 

appeal was pending, Conley successfully completed his retained jurisdiction. The district court 

again suspended Conley’s sentence and placed him on probation. On appeal, “mindful that the 
2

district court has placed him back on probation,” Conley continues to assert that the district court 

erred in revoking probation and retaining jurisdiction. 

A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the defendant lacks 

a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982); 

Bradshaw v. State, 120 Idaho 429, 432, 816 P.2d 986, 989 (1991). Even where a question is 

moot, there are three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) when there is the possibility of 

collateral legal consequences imposed on the person raising the issue; (2) when the challenged 

conduct is likely to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and (3) when an 

otherwise moot issue raises concerns of substantial public interest. State v. Barclay, 149 Idaho 6, 

8, 232 P.3d 327, 329 (2010). The only relief Conley has requested on appeal cannot be granted 

because Conley has been placed back on probation. Therefore, any judicial relief from this 

Court would have no effect on either party. See id.

Accordingly, Conley’s appeal from the order revoking probation is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael L. Armstrong certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Windsor Woodmont Black
Hawk Resort Corp.

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 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 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 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 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 controls
     over financial reporting.

Date: May 21, 2004


/s/  Michael L. Armstrong
---------------------------------------
     Michael L. Armstrong,
     Executive Vice President and
     Chief Financial Officer
No. 74-5963.

#### Smith *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.