alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John E. RUIZ, Sr., et al. v. SUCCESSION of Joseph George VIOSCA and Succession of Mrs. Ruth Corkern Viosca.

No. 6053.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

March 8, 1974.

John E. Ruiz, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellants.

T: M. McBride, III, Chalmette, for defendants-appellees.

Before REDMANN, STOULIG and BOUTALL, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from judgments on rules and exceptions (prior to answer) which (1) refused preliminary injunction against the land sale by defendant to a third party, (2) dismissed plaintiffs’ demands for specific performance of two expired contracts obliging defendants to sell the land to some of plaintiffs, and (3) dismissed two of the three plaintiffs on exceptions (while overruling an exception lodged against plaintiff Ronald Ruiz). We affirm.

*528Plaintiffs have never filed a brief, despite having appeared at argument time to advise the court the appeal was not abandoned (thus averting dismissal under Uniform Rule 7 § 5(b)) and to obtain leave to file a brief within ten days.

Decedents’ offer to sell property had been accepted by “Tulane Ave. Holding Co., John Ruiz, *Pres.”*[or, arguably, John Ruiz had previously sued the same defendants on the same contractual cause of action for the same relief and judgment was rendered dismissing his suit. The exception of res judicata was correctly maintained as to him; C.C. art. 2286.

Ruiz’s corporation, claiming under that first contract, affirmatively shows by its petition that it consented to the extinction by novation of any right it may have had under the first contract by causing a new buy-sell agreement in favor of Ronald Ruiz. C.C. art. 2185 et seq. That Ronald Ruiz may have allowed this second agreement to lapse by inaction does not revive the corporation’s extinguished right. The exception of no cause of action was properly maintained as to the corporation.

Insofar as Ronald Ruiz may have sought to appeal from the refusal of preliminary injunction his appeal is dismissed as untimely because beyond the 15-day period of C.C.P. art. 3612.

Insofar as he may appeal from dismissal of his demand for specific performance his appeal is dismissed as moot for lack of a recorded lis pendens notice, C.C. P. art. 3751, in view of the sale to a third party. A contract to sell an immovable, or a judgment ordering specific performance of such a contract, is “utterly null and void, except between the parties” in the absence of recordation, C.C. art. 2266. Whenever the interest asserted in a lawsuit is of a kind that requires recordation to be effective against third parties, the lis pen-dens statute, C.C.P. art. 3751, enables the claimant to protect himself against third parties; and the statute must be complied with to preserve such interest in respect to the property, Soniat v. Whitmer, 1916, 141 La. 235, 74 So. 916.

The appeal is in part dismissed and the judgment insofar as properly appealed is affirmed at plaintiffs’ cost.
# C_2016407EN.01010101.xml

| 4.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 407/101 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 407/101

---

P8_TA(2015)0221

Conclusion of the Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 June 2015 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the joint fulfilment of commitments thereunder (10400/2014 — C8-0029/2015 — 2013/0376(NLE))

(Consent)

(2016/C 407/17)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (10400/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (10400/2014),

| — | having regard to the Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol adopted at the eighth session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, held in Doha, Qatar in December 2012 (Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol adopted at the eighth session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, held in Doha, Qatar in December 2012 (Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 192(1) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0029/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 192(1) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0029/2015),

| — | having regard to the letter of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the letter of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy,

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rule of Procedures, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rule of Procedures,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A8-0167/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A8-0167/2015),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Gives its consent to conclusion of the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and to the United Nations. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and to the United Nations.

---
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases News Conferences
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				News Releases
 				**Press Kits**
 				Tip Sheets
 **State Government Retirement Systems** Press Release General Summary [PDF] Table 1. National Summary of State Public Employee Retirement System Finances:  
    - Fiscal Year 2009 [PDF]
    - Fiscal Year 2008 [PDF]
    - Fiscal Year 2007 [PDF] Table 2. Revenues of State Public Employee Retirement Systems by State:  
    - Fiscal Year 2009 [PDF]
    - Fiscal Year 2008 [PDF]
    - Fiscal Year 2007 [PDF] Table 3. Expenditures of State Public Employee Retirement Systems by State:  
    - Fiscal Year 2009 [PDF]
    - Fiscal Year 2008 [PDF]
    - Fiscal Year 2007 [PDF] Table 4. Cash and Investment Holdings of State Public Employee Retirement Systems by State:  
    - Fiscal Year 2009 [PDF]
    - Fiscal Year 2008 [PDF]
    - Fiscal Year 2007 [PDF] Table 5. Number and Membership of State Public Employee Retirement Systems by State:  
    - Fiscal Year 2009 [PDF]
    - Fiscal Year 2008 [PDF]
    - Fiscal Year 2007 [PDF] Table 6. Pension Obligations of State Public Employee Defined Benefit Retirement Systems by State:  
    - Fiscal Year 2009 [PDF]
    - Fiscal Year 2008 [PDF]
    - Fiscal Year 2007 [PDF]
 
 CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### BUTLER’S SHOE CORPORATION v. Mrs. Cecile Gardner ANDREWS.

No. 45939.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 2, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1970.

Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell, L. F. Sams, Jr., Jackson, for appellant.

Burgin, Gholson, Hicks & Nichols, Columbus, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SILVER JOSE GALINDO, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

J. SALAZAR, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 18-16183 

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00302-EFB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Edmund F. Brennan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted June 11, 2019

***

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Silver Jose Galindo appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-16183 

800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.

Galindo argues that he is entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for the 

time spent in federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum

between April 5, 2004, and January 28, 2005. We disagree. The state retained 

primary jurisdiction over Galindo during this time, see Thomas v. Brewer, 923 

F.2d 1361, 1367 (9th Cir. 1991) (an accused transferred pursuant to a writ of 

habeas corpus ad prosequendum is “on loan” to federal authorities and remains a 

state prisoner), and the record reflects that the state of Hawaii credited this time 

toward Galindo’s state parole revocation sentence. Therefore, the credits earned 

during this period cannot be credited towards his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 

3585(b); United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992) (under section 3585(b), 

a defendant cannot “receive a double credit for his detention time”). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<PAGE>



<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such consolidated financial statements.

                  DONALDSON, LUFKIN & JENRETTE, INC. & SUBSIDIARIES

                               Financial Data Schedule
                         (In thousands, except per share data)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,105,257
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,560,638
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                         22,628,782
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                       20,598,639
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                         16,851,495
<PP&E>                                         386,677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              70,505,845
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,418,757
<PAYABLES>                                   7,652,768
<REPOS-SOLD>                                36,006,656
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                          7,687,416
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                          10,455,900
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,251,857
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          200,000
<PREFERRED>                                    200,000
<COMMON>                                         5,593
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,855,897
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                70,505,845
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              437,083
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         1,712,480
<COMMISSIONS>                                  690,156
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                1,193,308
<FEE-REVENUE>                                   53,816
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,153,167
<COMPENSATION>                               1,908,201
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                661,100
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     661,100
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   408,250
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     7.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     6.32





</TABLE>
#### BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF JACKSON COUNTY, Mississippi v. Luther Dewan ROBERTS.

No. 47343.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 17, 1973.

*437Megehee, Brown, Williams & Corlew, Larry A. Smith, Pascagoula, for appellant.

Ransom P. Jones, III, Pascagoula, for appellee.

WALKER, Justice:

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Mississippi, wherein the circuit court entered a judgment reversing an order of the Board of Supervisors which had declined to rezone certain real property from Residential-3 to Commercial-1.

The original petition for a reclassification of the property from Residential-3 to Commercial-1 was first presented to the Planning Commission of Jackson County which approved a rezoning thereof on July 28, 1971, .and which forwarded its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. On August 2, 1971, the Board of Supervisors overruled the recommendation of the Planning Commission and denied the rezoning but granted the appellee a use permit for operation of an air conditioning business. Thereafter, an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Jackson County by a Bill of Exceptions which reversed the Board of Supervisors and entered its judgment rezoning said property from Residential-3 to Commercial-1, hence, this appeal.

The judgment of the circuit court must be reversed for the reason that the record in this case does not establish, nor did the original petition to rezone allege that there had been any change in the character of the neighborhood whatsoever since the original zoning ordinance was adopted.

In order to justify the rezoning of property from one classification to another, there must be proof either (1) that there was a mistake in the original zoning, or (2) that the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent as to justify reclassification. L. F. Patterson et al." v. Mayor and Commissioners of the City of Jackson, 285 So.2d 466 (decided November 19, 1973); Hinds County Board of Supervisors v. Johnny Covington, 285 So.2d 143 (decided on November 12, 1973); Moore v. Madison County Board of Supervisors, 227 So.2d 862 (Miss.1969); Ridgewood Land Company v. Moore, 222 So.2d 378 (Miss.1969).

In this case Roberts failed to carry the burden which rested upon him to establish that there had been a mistake in the original zoning of the -property or that there had been a change in the character of the neighborhood to an extent which would justify or require reclassification.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed and order of the Board of Supervisors declining to rezone the property reinstated.

RODGERS, P. J., and PATTERSON, INZER and SUGG, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         August 21, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 16, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 463 to Competitive Product List*. Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-208, CP2018-290.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-17989 Filed 8-20-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
# C_2014373EN.01001301.xml

| 21.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/13

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 373/11)

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Castres – Paris (Orly) |
| Period of validity of the contract | From 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2019 |
| Deadline for the submission of applications and tenders | For applications: 5 December 2014, before 12:00, Paris time (France)
  For tenders: 15 January 2015, before 12:00, Paris time (France) |
| Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligations can be obtained | Chambre de commerce et d’industrie du Tarn |
| BP 30217 |
| 40, allée Alphonse Juin |
| 81101 Castres Cedex |
| FRANCE |
| Tel. +33 567466000 |
| Fax +33 563514699 |
| E-mail: f.chambert@tarn.cci.fr |

Member State

France

Route concerned

Castres – Paris (Orly)

Period of validity of the contract

From 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2019

Deadline for the submission of applications and tenders

For applications: 5 December 2014, before 12:00, Paris time (France)

For tenders: 15 January 2015, before 12:00, Paris time (France)

Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligations can be obtained

Chambre de commerce et d’industrie du Tarn

BP 30217

40, allée Alphonse Juin

81101 Castres Cedex

FRANCE

Tel. +33 567466000

Fax +33 563514699

E-mail: f.chambert@tarn.cci.fr

---
**Exhibit 31.2**

**Certification**

I, Paul C. Wirth, certify that:

l.      I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Credit Suisse First Boston(USA), Inc.;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

a)               Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)              Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)               Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)               All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)              Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: March 17, 2005 |   | /s/ PAUL C. WIRTH                        |
|---------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                      | Name:  | Paul C. Wirth                            |
|                      | Title: | *Chief Financial and Accounting Officer* |

 

----
# C_2012392EN.01000802.xml

| 19.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6771 — Bridgepoint/CPPIB/Dorna)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 392/03

On 13 December 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6771. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6771. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---