alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Fanny Hirsch, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

July 1, 1952.

*Paul Simon*and *Mugo Emmerich,*in person, for Hugo Emmerich, as ancillary administrator *c. t. a.*of Fanny Hirsch, deceased, petitioner.

*Morgan Burlce*for Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij, N. V., respondent.

Collins, S.

This is an application by the ancillary administrator c. *t. a.*to compel delivery of the sum of $952.03, the balance in an account which deceased had opened with Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij, N. V., in the year 1940. There is no dispute as to the facts in connection with the transaction but the respondent, the New York Agency of Nederlandsche opposes the application upon the ground that the court is without jurisdiction to direct delivery.

The contention of the defendant is wholly lacking in substance. Section 205 of the Surrogate’s Court Act empowers the Surrogate to enforce collection of the claim as was pointed out *562by Surrogate Foley in *Matter of Jacobsen*(178 Misc. 479, 481, 484) where he said: *“*There is cooiplete jurisdiction in this court under the applicable statutes and the more recent decisions of the Court of Appeals to compel the delivery of moneys in a bank account in the name of the decedent to the administrator, executor or other legal representative of the estate. There is, moreover, full and complete power and authority to determine the ownership of the fund as between the representative of the estate and a claimant to the same account. *(Matter of Akin,*248 N. Y. 202; *Matter of Raymond*v. *Davis,*Id. 67; *Matter of Wilson,*252 id. 155.) * * * In the present proceeding the specific funds at the date of death were and now are in the name of the decedent. The recovery of the specific amount of the deposit and not any award of damages against the bank is involved. These moneys on deposit are specific property within the proper scope of sections 205 and 206, Surrogate’s Court Act.”

It is conceded that the account opened by deceased was held by the Amsterdam Bank in an account with the New York Trust Company to the credit of the respondent agency. Upon these facts, the court is empowered to direct delivery of the funds to the petitioner. *(Matter of Jacobsen,*supra; *Matter of Kahn,*179 Misc. 939; *Van der Veen*v. *Amsterdamsche Bank,*178 Misc. 668.) In the case last cited the subject matter of the action was a dollar account identical with that involved in this case. Mr Justice Shientag there granted a motion for summary judgment despite defenses similar to that interposed by respondent in this proceeding.

The application is granted. Submit decree on notice.
<PAGE>

                                     EXHIBIT 11

                             MATRIX CAPITAL CORPORATION

                         Computation of Earnings Per Share
                   (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                              ---------------------------------------
                                                1994          1995            1996
                                              ---------    -----------      ---------
<S>                                          <C>           <C>             <C>
Net income................................   $    2,646          3,561     $    3,273
                                              ---------    -----------      ---------
Earnings available to
  common shareholders.....................        2,646          3,561          3,273
                                              ---------    -----------      ---------
Weighted average common
  shares outstanding before
  common equivalents......................    3,750,001     3,888,939       4,255,196
Common equivalent stock
  options and warrants....................           --        38,690         42,252
                                              ---------    -----------      ---------
Weighted average outstanding
  common and equivalent shares............    3,750,001     3,927,629       4,297,448
                                              ---------    -----------      ---------
Earnings per common
  and equivalent share....................   $     0.71   $       0.91     $     0.76
                                              ---------    -----------      ---------
</TABLE>
### The yield of sedimentary aquifers of the coastal plain, southeast river basins

By: Joseph Thomas Callahan

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1669W

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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  Matrix  Bancorp,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, D. Mark
Spencer,  President  and Co-Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  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 and 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.



Dated:   March 14, 2003                        /s/ D. Mark Spencer
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Name: D. Mark Spencer
                                               Title: President and
                                               Co-Chief Executive Officer
#### NORTH MIAMI GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC., Petitioner, v. Donald E. STONE, Respondent.

No. 69-1017.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 5, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Walter WILLIAMS.

No. 59940.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1977.

Michael L. Hughes, Kilbourne & Dart, St. Francisville, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Leon A. Picou, Jr., Dist. Atty., William E. Woodward, Asst. Dist. Atty., A. Z. Butterworth, Sp. Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. T. J. GOODS.

No. 61615.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 24, 1978.

In re: T. J. Goods applying for writ of review. Parish of Natchitoches.

*546Granted. The trial court is ordered to afford access of defendant’s counsel to the presentence report. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 877. See *State v. Underwood,*353 So.2d 1013 (La.1977).

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS, and MARCUS, JJ., dissent from this order.
#### Ex parte Jack MESSELT.

77-38.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 10, 1977.

EMBRY, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 21

                   Matrix Bancorp, Inc. (d/b/a Matrix Bancorp)

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

1.   Matrix  Capital  Bank - Organized  Pursuant  to a Federal  Savings and Loan
     Charter

2.   Matrix  Tower  Holdings,  LLC  (d/b/a  Matrix  Tower  Holdings  and  Matrix
     Financial Center) - Formed in Delaware

3.   Matrix  Financial  Services  Corporation  (d/b/a Matrix Home Loans,  Matrix
     Capital Mortgage and Matrix Capital Mortgage Corporation) - Incorporated in
     Arizona

4.   Matrix Insurance Services Corporation - Incorporated in Arizona

5.   The Vintage Group, Inc. - Incorporated in Texas

6.   Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc. - Incorporated in Delaware

7.   Sterling Trust Company - Incorporated in Texas

7.   MSCS Ventures, Inc. - Incorporated in Colorado

8.   Matrix Settlement & Clearance  Services,  L.L.C. (d/b/a Matrix Settlement &
     Clearance Services) - 45% Owned and Organized in New York

9.   MSCS Financial  Services,  LLC (100% owned by Matrix Settlement & Clearance
     Services, L.L.C.) - Formed in Delaware

10.  Matrix Advisory Services,  L.L.C. (d/b/a Matrix Advisory Services) - Formed
     in Delaware

11.  Matrix Asset Management  Corporation  (d/b/a Matrix Asset Management,  MTXC
     Realty and reoSource) - Incorporated in Colorado

12.  Matrix Bancorp Trading, Inc. (d/b/a United Financial,  Inc.) - Incorporated
     in Colorado

13.  First Matrix  Investment  Services  Corp.  (d/b/a  First Matrix  Investment
     Services) - Incorporated in Texas

14.  First Matrix, LLC - Organized in Colorado

15.  Matrix Funding Corp. - Incorporated in Colorado

16.  Equi-mor Holdings, Inc. - Incorporated in Nevada

17.  ABS School Services, L.L.C. (d/b/a ABS School Services and The Geo Group) -
     Organized in Arizona

18.  New Century Academy Property Management Group, LLC - Organized in Arizona

19.  New Century Educational Management Services, LLC - Organized in Arizona

20.  Matrix Bancorp Capital Trust I - Organized Under Delaware Law

21.  Matrix Bancorp Capital Trust II - Organized Under Delaware Law

22.  Matrix Bancorp Capital Trust III- Organized Under Delaware Law

23.  Matrix Bancorp Capital Trust IV - Organized Under Delaware Law

24.  Matrix Bancorp Capital Trust V - Organized Under Delaware Law
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          23,105
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,105
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,965
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,225
<OTHER-SE>                                     (35,085)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,105
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,342
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (18,342)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (18,342)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (18,342)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25257]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Division 
of Extramural Activities; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting:
    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and 
Stroke Special Emphasis Panel (Telephone Conference Call).
    Date: September 30, 1997.
    Time: 9:30 a.m. (EDT).
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 7550 Wisconsin Avenue, Room 
9C10, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
    Contact Person: Dr. Katherine Woodbury/Mr. Philip Wiethorn, 
Scientific Review Administrators, National Institutes of Health, 7550 
Wisconsin Avenue, Room 9C10, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-9223.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate an SBIR contract proposal.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. Applications 
and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the applications 
and/or proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the review and funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.853, Clinical 
Research Related to Neurological Disorders; No. 93.854, Biological 
Basis Research in the Neurosciences.)

    Dated: September 17, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-25257 Filed 9-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION Ill 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 

The Honorable Michael Krancer, Secretary 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

Rachel Carson State Office Building 

400 Market Street 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 

Dear Secretary Krancer: 

FEB 0 6 1013 

On January 31, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a 

revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Protection (DEP). This SIP revision pertains to the revision of the Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for the Pennsylvania counties in the PhiladelphiaWilmington, PA-NJ-DE 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.s) Nonattainment Area. Revisions to 

the MVEBs consist of an update to the budgets with the use of the Motor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator model (MOVES2010). EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and 

technically complete. 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Asrah Khadr, 

at 215- 814-2071. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking. 

cc: Ms. Joyce E. Epps, Director 

Bureau of Air Quality, PADEP 

Diana Esher, Director 

Air Protection Division 

(Jrinted on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free. 

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,296,503
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       6,336,536
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    513,128,474
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,756,426
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             606,744,598
<DEPOSITS>                                 278,742,440
<SHORT-TERM>                               221,602,659
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         25,539,585
<LONG-TERM>                                 40,249,623
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           671
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,609,620
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             606,744,598
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             31,095,596
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,053,455
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            32,149,051
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           8,376,183
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          18,261,028
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       13,888,023
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  874,314
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             37,746,667
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,296,434
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   8,137,626
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,137,626
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.70
<LOANS-NON>                                  4,989,719
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,038,853
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  187,614
<RECOVERIES>                                    30,872
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,756,426
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,756,426
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered September 4, 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00372

- CR

CARROLL GENE HENDERS ON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 069214



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s September 3, 2019 motion to extend time to file his brief.

We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or before October 3 , 2019.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
October 2, 2015

Mr. Cuong Hoang

206 Desellum Ave

Gaithersburg, MD 20877

Dear Mr. Hoang:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2779, but we are unable 

to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
#### Irene Elizabeth McADAM, Appellant, v. John Broughton McADAM, Appellee.

No. K-389.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

June 19, 1969.

Ginsberg & Ginsberg, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting Chief Judge.

The defendant in an action for divorce has appealed from a final decree of divorce entered by the Circuit Court for Volusia County.

The basic question presented for our determination in this appeal is whether said court erred in granting the divorce on the ground of extreme mental cruelty where there was no corroborative evidence as to that ground.

The only evidence of the defendant’s extreme mental cruelty was the testimony of the plaintiff himself. There was no corroboration of such testimony.

This proceeding was strenuously contested. It is well settled that corroboration in such cases may be of a lesser degree, or slight, as compared to uncontested di*450vorce cases. However, it is firmly engrained in the jurisprudence of this State that even in contested cases some corroboration is necessary to sustain a final decree of divorce. See Dings v. Dings, 161 So.2d 227 (Fla.App.3d 1964); and 10 Fla. Jur., Divorce, Separation, and Annulment, § 40, p. 453, and the numerous Florida decisions cited therein.

Since there is no testimony in the record corroborating the plaintiff’s testimony of the defendant’s extreme mental cruelty, the sole ground for divorce alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint, the court erred in granting the divorce in the final decree appealed from herein, and that decree must be, and it is, reversed and the cause is remanded with directions for further proceedings consistent with the views hereinabove set forth.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.