alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STAMPER, OTIS & BURRAGE, a partnership, and Michael Burrage, Petitioners, v. Honorable Ronald E. SHAFFER, Judge of the District Court of Tulsa County, Respondent.

No. 77292.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 25, 1991.

ORDER

Original jurisdiction is assumed. Writ of prohibition issue prohibiting Ronald E. Shaffer, District Judge, or any other assigned judge, from proceeding further in cause No. CJ-90-2232, on the docket of the District Court, Tulsa County. Service in that cause was had on Michael Burrage at the time he was performing his official duties as president of the Oklahoma Bar Association.

*In re Integration of State Bar of Oklahoma,*185 Okl. 505, 95 P.2d 113 (1939), established the inherent power of this court to promulgate rules to create, control, regulate and integrate the bar of the state. That opinion established rules relative thereto which reads in part:

> In the public interest, and for the advancement of the administration of justice, there is hereby created an association of the members of the bar of the State of Oklahoma.

Those court-established rules also provide for an annual meeting of the Association.

Under current rules, the Oklahoma Bar Association is an official arm of this court, when acting for and on behalf of this Court in the performance of its governmental powers and functions. At time of *1044service upon him, petitioner Burrage was performing his required duties at the annual meeting of an official arm of this court. That was in the public interest, for the administration of justice according to law and to aid this court in carrying on the administration of justice. Petitioner Bur-rage, and his law firm, are extended, in the present district court case, the same immunity found and determined in *Ada Dairy Products Co. v. Superior Court,*258 P.2d 939 (Okl.1953).

HODGES, V.C.J., and DOOLIN, HARGRAVE, ALMA WILSON and SUMMERS, JJ., concur.

OPALA, C.J., and LAVENDER, SIMMS and KAUGER, JJ., dissent.

SIMMS, Justice,

dissenting:

I must respectfully dissent. In *State ex rel. Medlin v. Ferris,*405 P.2d 156 (Okl.1965), this Court examined a number of decisions wherein exemption from service of summons was granted, and after review of those decisions, we held:

> “The common factor in all of these cases is that the attendance of the persons was at or connected with a trial or hearing of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature.... It is also apparent that the person’s attendance at the trial, hearing or proceeding, was connected with the determination of the issues therein.”

Attendance by an officer of the Oklahoma Bar Association at the Annual Association Convention does not fall within the rubric of a judicial or quasi-judicial function, a hearing of a judicial nature, or a trial, which would clothe the officer with the cloak of immunity from service of summons.

I am authorized to state that Chief Justice OPALA, Justice LAVENDER, and Justice KAUGER join with me in the views expressed herein.
#### Herman H. Schwartz, Inc., Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of a construction contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), dated October 5, 1989, as denied that branch of its motion which was, in effect, for reargument of the defendant’s prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint which, on appeal, was granted by an order of this court, dated March 26, 1984 *(see, Herman H Schwartz, Inc. v City of New York,*100 AD2d 610).

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

That branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was purportedly for leave to "reargue, renew and rehear” was, in effect, only a request for reargument *(see, Fucci v Town of Oyster Bay,*170 AD2d 646; *Quirindongo v Quirindongo,*148 AD2d 516, 517; *DeFreitas v Board of Educ.,*129 AD2d 672). Since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, the plaintiff’s appeal, which is limited to so much of the order as denied that branch of its motion which was for reargument, must be dismissed *(see, Quirindongo v Quirindongo, supra; DeFreitas v Board of Educ., supra).*Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Donald E. Walter, Senior District Judge for the U.S. **

District Court for Western Louisiana, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARIS AZIZI,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

 Respondent.

No. 08-70449

Agency No. A72 143 638

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted November 14, 2011

San Francisco, California

Before: NOONAN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, District Judge.** 

Haris Azizi (“Azizi”), a native and citizen of Afghanistan, petitions for

review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an 

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for withholding of removal

under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). In his opening brief Azizi does not challenge the

FILED

DEC 08 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

agency’s finding that he is removable to Germany, or the agency’s denial of his

application for relief under the Convention Against Torture. These issues are

waived. Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). Azizi seeks

only review of the agency’s denial of withholding of removal to Afghanistan in the

alternative. We review for substantial evidence. Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d

1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,

and we deny the petition. 

Azizi did not establish past persecution in Afghanistan. To qualify for

withholding of removal Azizi must demonstrate a clear probability that his life or

freedom will be threatened upon removal to Afghanistan on account of his race,

religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 

Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 933 (9th Cir. 2004); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Azizi

has not demonstrated that he is more likely than not to suffer harm greater than the

general population of Afghanistan at the hands of the Afghani government or a

group the government cannot or will not control. Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967

(9th Cir. 1998); Lolong, 484 F.3d at 1179-80.

PETITION DENIED.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.4 MB)

Tags:DLA Aviation, Aviation Operations Center

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### Bobbie J. Sherrill, Respondent, v Carolyn Pettiford et al., Respondents, and Sybil M. Marsden, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, the defendant Sybil Marsden appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated August 14, 1989, which, after a hearing, denied her motion to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

On August 18, 1983, the plaintiff Bobbie Sherrill was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving the defendant, Sybil Marsden. At that time, Marsden presented her driver’s *513license which set forth her correct address of 33 Oak Street, White Plains, New York. On June 16, 1986, the plaintiffs process server, after several visits to this address, affixed the summons and complaint to the door of the premises and, thereafter, a copy of the papers were mailed to her at that address. TVo police accident reports list Marsden’s address as 33 Oak Street, as does the MV 104 form.

In her answer of August 11, 1986, Marsden set forth several affirmative defenses including a lack of personal jurisdiction, and, at her deposition of January 7, 1988, Marsden revealed, for the first time, that although she lived at 33 Oak Street at the time of the accident, she had been living in Florida for the past year. She admittedly received the summons and complaint on June 28, 1986, after it was forwarded to her in Florida by the post office but did nothing until October 31, 1986, when she tendered her New York driver’s license to the Florida authorities. On appeal, Marsden contends that substituted service under CPLR 308 (4) was improper, as the summons and complaint had not been affixed to her actual residence or abode. We disagree.

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 505 (5) requires that every motor vehicle licensee notify the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of any change of residence within 10 days of the occurrence of this change. A party who fails to comply with this provision will be estopped from challenging the propriety of service which is made to the former address *(see, Anello v Barry,*149 AD2d 640). In this case, Marsden admittedly failed to comply with this statutory mandate and only surrendered her New York State driver’s license to Florida authorities following the expiration of the Statute of Limitations in the underlying negligence action. Marsden is estopped from raising a claim of defective service because she engaged in conduct designed to conceal her new address *(see, Feinstein v Bergner,*48 NY2d 234, 241; *Lavery v Lopez,*131 AD2d 820; *Treutlein v Gutierrez,*129 AD2d 791; *Anello v Barry, supra; Hill v Jones,*113 AD2d 874; *Kramer v Rydér Truck Rental,*112 AD2d 194, 196; *McNeil v Tomlin, 82*AD2d 825). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
REPORT FOR APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEES - UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION (OPIC)

All Data through 06/30/2019, Amounts Rounded to the Nearest Whole Dollar

Pursuant to Public Law 116-6, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, Conference Report - Rept 116-9, Page 823 Link

REMAINING AMOUNT OF STATUTORY CAP

OPIC Statutory Limitation - 22 USC 2195(a)(1)(A) 29,000,000,000

ESTIMATED Exposure as of 06/30/2019 - Guaranteed Lender Data Pending (Note 1) 23,104,370,423

$ 5,895,629,577

REMAINING UNOBLIGATED & AVAILABLE BALANCES OF RESOURCES

Treasury Fiscal Year Fiscal Year

Symbol Appropriation End of Availability

Subsidy / Program Budget

071-0100-X 1994 (No Year) 110,565

071-0100-1719 2017 2019 139,291

071-0100-1820 2018 2020 9,996,023

071-0100-1921 2019 2021 20,000,000

TOTAL $ 30,245,880

Administrative Resources (Note 2)

71-4184-X 2019 (No Year) $ 52,183,129

DATA SOURCES & NOTES

Source: Subsidy Transactions - Amounts of Subsidy and Principal Obligated sourced from OPIC Financial Systems using 

General Ledger date based reporting

Note 1: Exposure as of 6/30/2019 is estimated as reporting from Guaranteed Lenders is 30 days post quarter.

Note 2: FY 2019 Administrative Resources Budget as of 6/30/2019

Total OPIC Appropriation 79,200,000

Carryforward Amount 19,751,505

Less 2019 Obligations Incurred as of 6/30/2019 46,768,376

$ 52,183,129
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7438

JOEL WATKINS FULP,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MECKLENBURG COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-05-362-2)

Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joel Watkins Fulp, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Joel Watkins Fulp appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action for failure to comply

with its order to file a supplemental complaint to cure the defects

in the original complaint. Because Fulp may cure the defect in his

complaint by filing a supplemental complaint in accordance with the

district court’s order, the dismissal is not appealable. See

Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064,

1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction. We further deny Fulp’s motion to amend

caption. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
DISMISSED and Opinion Filed March 21, 2013 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 00156

- CV

COLONIAL COUNTY MUTU AL INSURANCE COMPANY AND
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellants

V.

GREGORY DUANE FRAZIE R, TRUSTEE OF THE R& P ARLEDGE CHILDREN'S TRUST, AS SOLE SHAREHOLDER AND BENEFICIAL OWNER OF
THE ASSETS OF EXPRES SWAY FINANCIAL, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas Cou nty, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 10

- 02020

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang

- Miers and Lewis Opinion by Chief Justice Wright

Before the Court is the parties’ February 27, 2013 agreed motion to dismiss the appeal.

The parties have inform ed the Court that they have settled their differences. Accordingly, we

grant the parties’ motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2).

120156F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/
CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE1200156.R.docx 2 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

COLONIAL COUNTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY AND NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellants

No. 05

- 12

- 00156

- CV V.

GREGORY DUANE FRAZIER, TRUSTEE
OF THE R&P ARLEDGE CHILDREN'S TRUST, AS SOLE SHAREHOLD ER AND
BENEFICIAL OWNER OF THE ASSETS OF EXPRESSWAY FINANCIAL, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 10

- 02020. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang

- Miers and Lewi s participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of the appeal.

Judgment entered March 21, 2013.

/Carolyn Wright/
CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1​


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2019 (the “Report”) of Sutter Rock Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mark D. Klein, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





|    |                                                                                                                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

​


|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

​/s/ Mark D. KleinName: Mark D. KleinDate: November 7, 2019
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1



                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Jurisdiction
                 Company:                                         of Formation:
                 --------                                         -------------
<S>                                                             <C>
            Marker Deutschland GmbH(1)                              Germany
            Marker USA(1)                                           Utah
            Marker Japan Co. Ltd.(1)                                Japan
            Marker Austria GmbH(1)                                  Austria
            Marker Canada, Ltd.(1)                                  Canada
            Marker Ltd.(1)                                          Utah
            Marker AG(1)                                            Switzerland
            DNR USA, Inc.(1)                                        Delaware
            DNR North America, Inc.(1)                              Delaware
            DNR Japan Co. Ltd.(1)                                   Japan
            DNR Sportsystem, Ltd.(2)                                Switzerland

</TABLE>

            (1) Sold to Newco as of November 30, 1999 under the terms of the
            Purchase Agreement

            (2) Was an 80% owned subsidiary of Marker AG until September 1, 1998
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7160

RICHARD M. HAWKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LARRY JARVIS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-795-7) Submitted: November 5, 2004 Decided: December 2, 2004 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard M. Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Richard M. Hawkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hawkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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.                  

###### National Transportation Safety Board

# TIME AND DATE:

 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, September 25, 2018.

# PLACE:

 NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20594.

# STATUS:

 The two items are open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

58357 Highway Special Investigation of Pedestrian Safety

58387 Aircraft Incident Report—Taxiway Overflight, Air Canada Flight 759, Airbus A320-211, C-FKCK, San Francisco, California, July 7, 2017

# NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:

 Telephone: (202) 314-6100.

The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.

                        Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle McCallister at (202) 314-6305 or by email at                         *Rochelle.McCallister@ntsb.gov*                         by Wednesday, September 19, 2018.                    

                        The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at                         *www.ntsb.gov.*

                        Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at                         *www.ntsb.gov.*

# FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

                         Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at                         *bingc@ntsb.gov.*

# FOR MEDIA INFORMATION CONTACT:

                         Christopher O'Neil at (202) 314-6100 or by email at                         *christopher.oneill@ntsb.gov*                         for the Highway Special Investigation of Pedestrian Safety and Keith Hollow at (202) 314-6100 or by email at                         *keith.holloway@ntsb.gov*                         for the Aircraft Accident Report.                    

Tuesday, September 4, 2018.

Candi R. Bing,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018-19425 Filed 9-4-18; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 7533-01-P