alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Second Division,

January 24, 1939

No. 40510.

#### Protests 929708-G, etc., of International Business Machines Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       4,279,012
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,403,963
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 60,768,827
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    192,988,708
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,608,521
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             273,277,342
<DEPOSITS>                                 194,974,848
<SHORT-TERM>                                 3,503,870
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,266,127
<LONG-TERM>                                 52,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,626
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,532,902
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             273,277,342
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             12,603,400
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,275,406
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               709,149
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            15,587,955
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           6,663,743
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,931,721
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,992,491
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  631,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (4,871)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,813,644
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,670,523
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,818,398
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.02
<LOANS-NON>                                     71,600
<LOANS-PAST>                                   927,933
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,997,453
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   20,079
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,608,521
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,608,521
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Partners XII 1995 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000720392
<NAME> ANGELES PARTNERS XII
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       3,643,002
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   140477
<ALLOWANCES>                                   145,987
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      97,572,455
<DEPRECIATION>                              51,033,522
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              55,881,762
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                     73,372,227
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (20,788,288)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                55,881,762
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,845,938
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            22,158,627
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,562,955
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,496,488)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,496,488)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,496,488)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (33.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### HAMER v. HUMPHREYS.

November 19, 1836.

*Rule to show cause why judgment should not he entered for leant of a sufficient affidavit of defence, ■*

Where a defendant has filed an affidavit of defence under the act of 28th March, 1835, which is defective, and the plaintiff subsequently files a *narr.*and asks for and obtains a plea from the defendant, the plaintiff has waived his right to have a judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence.

THE plaintiff in this case had issued a summons returnable the first Monday of September, 1836. Under the act of 28th March, 1835, he regularly filed a copy of his book entries. The defendant in due time filed an affidavit of defence, according to the provisions of the act, but the same was defective in not disclosing a defence. Of this the plaintiff took no advantage at the time by moving for judgment, but filed a *narr.*and asked for and obtained from the defendant a plea, which was filed. Afterwards, on the 12th of Nov. 1836, the plaintiff obtained this rule to show cause why judgment should not be entered for the plaintiff, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. On the hearing of the rule,

*Fassit,*for the rule,

contended that by the terms of the second section of the act of 28th March, 1835, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. *(Stroud's Purd. D.*231.) The act says, that “it shall be lawful for the plaintiff on, or *at any time*after the third Saturday, &c. on motion, to enter a judgment by default, &c. unless the defendant shall previously have filed an affidavit of defence, stating, Me.”

*Alleson, contra.*

The acceptance of a plea by the plaintiff was a waiver of plaintiff’s right to a judgment under the act.

Per Curiam :

The judgment for want of an affidavit of defence is *by default,*being so designated by the act. Here the plaintiff has chosen to treat the defendant as not in default, not only by *29not moving for judgment, but by asking and obtaining a plea from the defendant, which amount to a waiver of his previous right, under the act, to have judgment. Had the plaintiff moved for judgment, instead of calling on the defendant to plead, the latter, under our rules, might have exhibited such a case as to have been permitted a supplemental affidavit of defence. The act, in giving a right to the plaintiff to have a judgment by default, contemplates a condition of things for which it provides, that is, the plaintiff’s copy of the instrument, &c. on which the suit is brought, and the absence or insufficiency of defendant’s affidavit But here the condition of things is altered by the plaintiff’s own act, and repeated decisions in Pennsylvania have settled that a plaintiff may waive a right or advantage. Such.a waiver is presented in this case.

Rule discharged.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9811]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE


Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 
(NCLIS).
SUMMARY: The U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information 
Science is holding an open business meeting to discuss Commission 
programs and administrative matters. Topics will include: (1) Digital 
Information; (2) Emergency Management, (3) Literacy; (4) Open Access 
and related topics.
    Dates and Times: NCLIS Business Meeting--June 4, 9 a.m.-3 p.m.; 
June 5, 9 a.m.-12 p.m., 2007.

ADDRESSES: Room 642 (June 4-5), Madison Building, Library of Congress, 
101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20540-1099.
    Status: Open meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The business meeting is open to the public, 
subject to space availability. To make special arrangements for 
physically challenged persons, contact Madeleine McCain, Director of 
Operations, 1800 M Street, NW., Suite 350 North Tower, Washington, DC 
20036, e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d9b4b4babab8b0b799b7bab5b0aaf7beb6af"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d5b8b8b6b6b4bcbb95bbb6b9bca6fbb2baa3">[email protected]</span></a>, fax 202-606-9203 or telephone 202-606-
9200.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madeleine McCain, Director of 
Operations, U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information 
Science, 1800 M Street, NW., Suite 350 North Tower, Washington, DC 
20036, e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b262628282a22250b2528272238652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e43434d4d4f47406e404d42475d00494158">[email protected]</span></a>; fax 202-606-9203 or telephone 202-606 
9200.

    Dated: May 17, 2007.
Madeleine C. McCain,
NCLIS Director of Operations.
[FR Doc. E7-9811 Filed 5-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7528-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
09-5224-pr Torres v. Ercole UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 13 thday of April two thousand eleven, Present: RALPH K. WINTER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges

.

_____________________________________________________ IVAN TORRES, Plaintiff-Appellant , -v- 09-5224-pr ROBERT ERCOLE, Respondent-Appellee

.

Appearing for Appellant: Eunice C. Lee, (Richard M. Greenberg, on the brief ), Office of the Appellate Defender, New York, NY. Appearing for Appellee: Alyson J. Gill, A ssistant Attorney General, (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General and Roseann B. MacKechnie, Deputy Solicitor General for Criminal Matters, on the brief ), for Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Attorney General, New York, NY. Appeal from the United States District C ourt for the Southern District of New York (Berman, J. ).2 ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED

. Appellant appeals from an order of the Southern District of New York (Berman, J. ) denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel as a result of his attorney’s failure to obtain suppression of a statement made shortly before his arrest. The district c ourt denied habeas relief and this appeal followed. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated in the district court’s thoughtful and comprehensive opinion. We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
EX-10.1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO CHAIRMAN AGREEMENT



 





Exhibit 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

CHAIRMAN AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

NATIONAL MEDICAL HEALTH CARD SYSTEMS, INC.

AND

THOMAS W. ERICKSON




     This First Amendment (“Amendment”) is dated as of the 28th day of January, 2008 by and between
NATIONAL MEDICAL HEALTH CARD SYSTEMS, INC. (the “Company”), and Thomas W. Erickson (“Mr.
Erickson”).



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, on February 23, 2007 the Company entered into a Chairman Agreement with Mr. Erickson
(the “Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, both the Company and Mr. Erickson desire to extend the Term of the Agreement and to
clarify Mr. Erickson’s current role at the Company.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the
parties agree as follows:



     1. Paragraph 1.1 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



          “The Company hereby retains Mr. Erickson to serve as Chairman of the Board, Interim Chief
Executive Officer and Interim President; and Mr. Erickson accepts such positions, in each case
subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.”




     2. Paragraph 1.2 is amended by deleting the first sentence and replacing it with the
following:



          “Mr. Erickson will serve as Chairman of the Board and in such other capacities as he and the
Company may agree.”




     3. Paragraph 2.1 of the Agreement shall be amended by renewing the Term for a period of one
(1) year, commencing on the first anniversary of the Effective Date. As a result, the Agreement
will now expire on February 22, 2009 unless earlier terminated as provided in the Agreement.



     4. Except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall be
unmodified and remain in full force and effect.



     5. From and after the execution and delivery of this Amendment, all references to the
Agreement contained in other agreements and instruments executed and delivered pursuant to or in
connection with the Agreement shall hereinafter mean and refer to the Agreement as amended hereby.



 









 





     6. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts by the parties hereto, all of which shall
constitute one and the same instrument. A facsimile transmission of this signed Amendment bearing a
signature on behalf of a party hereto shall be binding on such party.



[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]




2









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Mr. Erickson have executed this First Amendment as of the
day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	NATIONAL MEDICAL HEALTH CARD
SYSTEMS, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ George McGinn	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	George McGinn	 	 
	 	 	General Counsel	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Thomas W. Erickson	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Thomas W. Erickson	 	 
	 	 	Interim Chief Executive Officer and President	 	 
	 	 	Chairman of the Board	 	 







3
Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, W ashington 98057 - 3356

October 30, 2012 Mr. Douglas M. Lane ODA Deputy Lead Administrator The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 MC 03 - 56 Seattle, WA 98124 - 2207 Dear Mr. Lane: We have received your October 18, 2012, petition for exemption from the requirements of Title 14 , Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25 - 981(a)(3) Amendment 25 - 125 and 25 - 901(c) Amendment 25 - 126 for the 737 - 600/ - 700/ - 800/ - 900/ - 900ER airplane s . The exemption, if granted, would allow the planned changes to the Fuel Quantity Indication Sy stem (FQIS) . This request, which you submitted to the Department of Transportation’s Federal Docket Management S ys tem (FDMS), has been given Docket No. FAA - 2012 - 1137 . We are in the process of reviewing your request , and will contact you if we need additional inform ation . A summary

of your petition will be published in the Federal Register for public comment , in accordance with the requirements of § 11.85 . You will be advised of the agency's decision on your petitions as soon as possible. If you have any questions or c oncerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please contact Mike Dostert b y phone at 425 - 227 - 2132 or by e - mail at mike.dostert @faa .gov. Sincerel y, Theresa White Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service
No. 42163.

#### Protests 970904-G, etc., of M. J. Kniejski et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The protests were overruled.
EXHIBIT 32.1



NOBEL LEARNING COMMUNITIES, INC.



CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY

RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



In connection with the Annual Report of Nobel Learning Communities, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 3, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, George H. Bernstein, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, in connection with Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that based on my knowledge:



(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/ George H. Bernstein  
|Name: George H. Bernstein
|Chief Executive Officer  
|                         
|Date: September 14, 2004
**Exhibit 32.2**

AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES

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

          In connection with the Annual Report of Amtech Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bradley C. Anderson, Vice President – Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

|   | By     | /s/ Bradley   C. Anderson                                      |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                |
|   |   | Bradley C.   Anderson                                          |
|   |   | Vice   President – Finance and    Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   | Amtech   Systems, Inc.                                         |
|   |   | Date:   December 21, 2006                                      |
Before the Third Division,

October 7, 1943

No. 48837.

#### Protests 763708-G (A), etc., of Santo Aliotta & Son et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and cited cases the following allowances were made by the court to compensate for foreign substances on the outside of certain cheese: (1) 2)4 percent for cheese similar to-that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstract 42146, and (2) 1 percent for cheese similar to Reggiano cheese the subject of said C. D. 706. Protests sustained to this extent.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 8, 2020

NO. 03-19-00954-CV

Carlson, Brigance & Doering, Inc., and LJA Engineering, Inc., Appellants

v.

Michael S. Compton, Jenifer Hammock, and Kyle Hammock, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 335TH DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KELLY, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the interlocutory orders signed by the trial court on December 5, 2019. 

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no 

reversible error in the trial court’s interlocutory orders. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial 

court’s interlocutory orders. The costs are assessed to the appellants and each appellant shall 

bear one-half the costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
(Reap. Dec. 9953)

#### Variable Condenser Corp. Globe Shirring Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 986769.

(Decided March 22, 1961)

Plaintiffs not represented by counsel.

*William E. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When this appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiffs and the case was ordered submitted by the court.

An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold tlie proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by this appeal to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.