alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BENAIAH WATSON, Treasurer of a ditch company leading, &c. *vs.*CORNELIUS LOFLAND, for the use of DAVID LOFLAND.

The treasurer of a ditch company, under the general ditch law, cannot be sued on orders drawn by the managers *before acceptance.*

Such orders should be drawn by both managers.

The liability to laborers is on the part of the managers, and not of the treasurer.

Certiorari to Justice Welch.

Record. C. Lofland, use of D. Lofland *vs.*B. Watson, treasurer of the ditch co., &c. Action of debt on an order drawn by Job Sharp, one of the managers of said ditch, on the said B. Watson, treasurer.

The order was as follows :—

*61Mr. Benaiah Watson, treasurer of a ditch leading from the lands of David C. Pennewill into Russel’s mill-pond, pay to Cornelius Lofland, one dollar and twenty-five cents, for two days’ work on said ditch, at 62f per day, for the use of Sarah Hevaloe, widow of Jesse Hevaloe.

$1 25. (Signed) Job Sharp, *Manager.*

*Aug.*12, 1842.

I transfer the within order to D. Lofland.

(Signed) Cornelius Lofland.

The parties appeared on the day of trial; “ defendant disputed the demand, and plead the order not accepted and no money belonging to said ditch in his hands.” Judgment for plaintiff.

Exceptions:—1st. That the cause of action was not within the magistrate’s jurisdiction. 2d; That the plaintiff had no cause of action. 3d. That the defendant was not liable to a suit on the order before acceptance. 4th. That he was not liable without proof of funds in hands as treasurer.

*Cullen,*for reversal.

*Houston,*for affirmance.

*The*Court.

—By the 8th section of the general ditch law (9 vol. 468,) the managers of any ditch company are authorized to make the ditches, and employ the laborers; and all payments are to be made by orders drawn by the managers on the treasurer. The treasurer is required by section 9, to give bond and security conditioned for the faithful performance of his trust and duty, and the payment of any money in his hands as treasurer, over to his successor, at the expiration of his office.

The liability to laborers for their wages is therefore on the part of the managers, and not on the part of the treasurer, at least before the acceptance of orders, which must be drawn by both managers, or the treasurer is not bound to accept or pay them. If he refuse to accept orders properly drawn on him by the managers, the treasurer is liable to them on his bond; but he is not liable to the holders of such orders, between whom and him there is no privity, and no obligation or promise express or implied, to pay the wages. If the orders be not accepted, they should be returned to the managers, who would be responsible on their contract with the laborers for the amount of wages. If accepted, the treasurer would be liable on his" acceptance.

Judgment reversed.
Summary by Deal Type

Deal Type Number of Deals Bond Issuance Amount Bond Notional Amount

Single Family 7 $ 3,285,650,061 $ 1,276,603,382Multifamily 5 $ 1,260,533,732 $ 1,517,829,991Reverse REMIC 2 $ 516,161,405 $ 515,661,405Grand Total 14 $ 5,062,345,198 $ 3,310,094,778

Summary by Series

roup Collateral Original 

July 2018 Ginnie Mae REMIC Issuance Summary

Series Dealer Trustee Deal Type Group Collateral Coupon Original Structure Principal Type Bond Iss

Number Type Term Amo

2018-091 Citigroup US Bank Single Family 1 G2 4.50 30 AD/PT/SEQ $ 

2 G2 5.00 30 AD/PT/SEQ $ 2

3 G2 5.00 30 SC/AD/PAC/PT/SCH/SUP $ 34 G2 5.00 30 AD/PAC/PT/SUP $ 5 G2 5.00 30 AD/PAC/PT/SUP $ 6 G2/SC 4.54 30 SC/PT $ 7 G2/SC 3.00 30 SC/PT $ 8 G2 4.68 30 SC/AD/PAC/PT/SCH/SEQ/SUP $ 19 G2 4.50 30 SC/AD/PAC/PT/SCH/SEQ/SUP $ 1

10 G2/SC 4.06 30 NTL/SC/PT $ 11 G2/SC 3.00 30 SC/AD/SEQ $ 

2018-091 Total $ 1,02018-092 Morgan Stanley US Bank Single Family 1 G2 2.54 30 PT $ 

2 G2 4.50 30 PT $ 3 G2 4.50 30 AD/PT/SEQ $ 3

4 G2/SC 4.95 30 SC/AD/PAC/PT/SUP $ 15 G1/G2 5.71 20/30 PT $ 

2018-092 Total $ 62018-093 Wells Fargo US Bank Single Family 1 G2 4.50 30 AD/PAC/PT/SUP $ 1

2 G2 4.00 30 AD/SEQ $ 3 G2 6.00 30 PT $ 4 G2 4.50 30 PT $ 1

2018-093 Total $ 4

2018-094 JP Morgan US Bank Single Family 1 G2 4.50 30 PT $ 

2 G2 4.00 30 SC/AD/PAC/PT/SCH/SUP $ 13 G2 4.50 30 PT $ 

2018-094 Total $ 22018-095 JP Morgan Wells Fargo Multifamily 1 G1 3.50 40 PT/SEQ $ 12018-095 Total $ 12018-096 Nomura Wells Fargo Multifamily 1 G1 3.52 40 PT/SEQ $ 1

2 G1 3.01 40 SC/SEQ $ 

2018-096 Total $ 22018-097 Credit Suisse US Bank Single Family 1 G2/SC 3.50 30 SC/AD/PT/SEQ $ 

2 G2/SC 4.47 30 SC/AD/PAC/PT/SCH/SEQ/SUP $ 4

3 G2/SC 4.50 30 SC/PT $ 4 G2/SC 7.63 30 SC/PT $ 5 G1 5.00 30 PT $ 

2018-097 Total $ 52018-098 Bank of America Wells Fargo Multifamily 1 G1 3.47 40 PT/SEQ $ 22018-098 Total $ 22018-099 Credit Suisse Wells Fargo Multifamily 1 G1 3.72 40 PT/SEQ $ 4

2018-099 Total $ 42018-100 Goldman Sachs US Bank Single Family 1 G2 4.50 30 AD/PT/SEQ $ 

2 G2 5.00 30 AD/PAC/PT/SUP $ 1

2018-100 Total $ 22018-101 Goldman Sachs US Bank Multifamily 1 G1 3.60 40 PT/SEQ $ 12018-101 Total $ 12018-102 Bank of America US Bank Single Family 1 G2 4.00 30 SC/AD/PAC/PT/SCH/SUP $ 

2018-102 Total $ 2018-H10 Bank of America US Bank Reverse REMIC 1 G2 4.31 50 HPT $ 

2 G2 4.11 50 HPT $ 3 G2 3.92 50 HPT $ 
2018-H10 Bank of America US Bank Reverse REMIC 4 G2 4.90 50 HSEQ $ 

5 G2 4.57 50 HPT $ 

2018-H10 Total $ 2

2018-H11 Nomura US Bank Reverse REMIC 1 G2 4.36 50 HPT $ 

2 G2 4.59 50 HPT $ 

3 G2 4.69 50 HPT $ 

4 G2 4.37 50 HPT $ 1

5 G2 4.53 50 HPT $ 1

2018-H11 Total $ 3

Grand Total $ 5,0

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
#### Ethel LEVY, Appellant, v. ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 42352.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 14, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.

ROBERTS, C. J, and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2  Certification of Chief Financial Officer
pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  I, J. Robert Paulson,
Jr., certify that:  1.I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Endocardial Solutions,
Inc.;  2.Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The
registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for
the registrant and have:  (a)Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b)Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and  (c)Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The
registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of 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; and  (b)Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.  Date: March 15, 2004/s/ J. Robert Paulson, Jr.SignatureName:
  J. Robert Paulson, Jr.Title:
  Chief Financial Officer
263 La. 83

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles SAMPSON.

No. 52270.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 4, 1972.

James D. Davis, Alexandria, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edwin O. Ware III, Dist. Atty., Robert P. Jackson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Charles Sampson, was indicted and charged with murder for the November 21, 1970 killing of one David C. Collins in Alexandria, Louisiana. Trial was held November 16, 1971. Defendant was found guilty without capital punishment and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two bills of exceptions were perfected, one of which was briefed.

In Bill of Exceptions No. 2 (the briefed bill), the defendant contends that the trial court should have given an instruction to the jury to determine the question of guilt separately from the penalty because counsel for the defendant would have to take an inconsistent position with respect to both guilt and penalty. The trial judge in his per curiam to the bill stated that there was “no provision of law permitting this type procedure.”

There is no merit to the bill. The trial judge’s per curiam is correct. The defendant has no right to demand such a procedure. State v. Shaffer, 260 La. 605, 257 So.2d 121; State v. Harris, 258 La. 720, 247 So.2d 847; Crampton v. Ohio, 402 U.S. 183, 91 S.Ct. 1454, 28 L.Ed.2d 711; McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 91 S.Ct. 1454, 28 L.Ed.2d 711*

*204The remaining bill of exceptions was neither briefed nor argued. We have examined it anyway and find it to be without merit.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

*

 We do not find the case of United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138, applicable. That case along with Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346, indicate that only the imposition of the death sentence is unconstitutional, in the former because it infringes upon a defendant’s right to jury trial and in the latter because it is cruel and unusual punishment. Those cases do not stand for the proposition that the Louisiana system in capital cases is unconstitutional, especially as applied to the defendant in the case before us because the defendant did not receive the death penalty.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          17,695
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  333,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                    52,060
<INVENTORY>                                    166,406
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               845,866
<PP&E>                                         628,286
<DEPRECIATION>                                 207,660
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,611,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          834,637
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     16,318
<COMMON>                                        90,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,881,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,611,393
<SALES>                                        125,186
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               698,466
<CGS>                                           87,176
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  471,548
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               124,732
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,671
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              52,504
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,011
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,607
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,404
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,404
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24



</TABLE>
# Alliant 3

GSA is currently developing the next unrestricted Alliant 3 GWAC.

Please visit the Alliant 3 GWAC Community of Interest for updates and more information. You may have to create an Interact account and become a member to join the community.

## Tell us what you think

Print PageEmail Page

Top

-  Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts-  Overview 
-  How to use GWACs 
-  8(a) STARS III 
-  Alliant 2 
-  VETS 2 (SDVOSB) 
-  Governmentwide dashboards 
-  Expired GWACs 
-  Polaris® 
-  Alliant 3
261 La. 1067

#### Ronald BROWN v. Mrs. Sylvia Steven BROWN, wife of Ronald Brown.

No. 52480.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1972.

In re: Ronald Brown applying for cer-tiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 260 So.2d 66.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000040834
<NAME> GENERAL SIGNAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           40000
<SECURITIES>                                        90
<RECEIVABLES>                                   367800
<ALLOWANCES>                                     15000
<INVENTORY>                                     247100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                718000
<PP&E>                                          753700
<DEPRECIATION>                                  448400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1565800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           422600
<BONDS>                                         241800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         78400
<OTHER-SE>                                      653400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1565800
<SALES>                                         505600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                505600
<CGS>                                           357300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   461700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   823
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  40500
<INCOME-TAX>                                     16200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              24300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     24300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Angelo FLEX and Santina Flex doing business as Southern Court, Appellants, v. Arthur LUCIANI, Appellee.

No. 69-526.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 24, 1970.

Kirk Sullivan of Sullivan & Robinson, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Joseph D. Farish, Jr., and Eugene E. Shuey of Farish & Farish, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have thoroughly reviewed the point presented for our review by the appellants’ brief and the pertinent portions of the record. On the basis thereof we are of the opinion that no error has been demonstrated by the appellant. The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

WALDEN and REED, JJ., and COOPER, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

  <ARTICLE> 5
  <MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
         
  <S>                            <C>
  <PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
  <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1996
  <PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1997
  <CASH>                                              942
  <SECURITIES>                                          0
  <RECEIVABLES>                                     4,232
  <ALLOWANCES>                                          0
  <INVENTORY>                                         811
  <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6,497
  <PP&E>                                           53,709
  <DEPRECIATION>                                   31,039
  <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   38,940
  <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             8,084
  <BONDS>                                          13,924
  <COMMON>                                             49
  <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
  <PREFERRED>                                           0
  <OTHER-SE>                                        7,173
  <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     38,940
  <SALES>                                           5,281
  <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5,281
  <CGS>                                             3,935
  <TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3,935
  <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     20
  <LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
  <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  303
  <INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1,051
  <INCOME-TAX>                                        386
  <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 665
  <DISCONTINUED>                                        0
  <EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
  <CHANGES>                                             0
  <NET-INCOME>                                        665
  <EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .69
  <EPS-DILUTED>                                       .69
          
  
</TABLE>
May 29, 2015

Ms. Linda Dean Glover Field Data Solutions, Inc dba Electronic Data Solutions

P.O. Box 31 Jerome, ID 83338

Dear Ms. Glover:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 29, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1334), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent 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.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us 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.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<PAGE> 1                                                EXHIBIT 11.

MUSTANG SOFTWARE, INC.

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(In thousands, except earnings per share)
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE>

                                                        Three Months Ended Twelve Months Ended
                                                           December 31,         December 31,
                                                          1995       1996       1995    1996
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                    <C>       <C>        <C>      <C>
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding      3,356      3,363      3,050    3,360
Common stock equivlents from outstanding stock options        0          0          0        0
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average common and common stock equivalents outstanding   3,356      3,363      3,050    3,360
===============================================================================================
Net Income (Loss)                                       $(1,410)   $(1,035)   $(1,097) $(3,453)
===============================================================================================
Earnings (Loss) per share (1)                           $  (.42)   $  (.31)   $  (.36) $ (1.03)
===============================================================================================
</TABLE>

(1) Fully diluted earnings per share have not been presented because the effects
are not material.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------