alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Orange & Black Bus Lines, Inc., et al., Appellants, *v.*Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., et al., Respondents. John Bachetti, Appellant, *v.*Safeway Trails, Inc., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 27, 1957.

*Hugh J. Boylan*and *William L. Shumate*for Orange & Black Bus Lines, Inc., and another, appellants.

*Arthur S. Gales*and *Thomas J. Brady*for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

There is no inconsistency in a verdict by a jury in favor of defendants against three plaintiffs and against defendants on a counterclaim. The jury could determine that while defendants may not have been free from negligence, plaintiffs ’ own negligence contributed to the occurrence and therefore they should not recover. With respect to the counterclaim the jury could determine that Safeway in some manner contributed to the accident although not necessarily causing it. Consequently there was no warrant for the court to disturb the verdict which was clearly within the province of the jury and which verdict is not unsupported by the record nor contrary to the weight of the credible evidence since there is nothing to indicate that the jury found Safeway free from negligence.

With respect to plaintiff Doyle, it is clear that he was a passenger in the bus and was not participating in its operation. *942The negligence of the driver, if any, under the circumstances is not imputable to Doyle. It was error therefore to charge that if Orange & Black Bus Lines, Inc., was contributorily negligent and injured Doyle, the verdict must be for the defendant. It was error also to refuse to charge that if there was negligence on the part of Safeway toward the occurrence, Doyle was entitled to recover.

The judgment should be modified to the extent of reversing the judgment in favor of defendant Safeway Trails, Inc., against plaintiff Orange & Black Bus Lines, Inc., on the counterclaim and the verdict of the jury with respect thereto should be reinstated; the judgment in favor of defendants against plaintiff Doyle should be reversed and a new trial ordered on his cause of action; and as modified affirmed, with $25 costs as of one appeal to appellants Orange & Black Bus Lines, Inc., and Louis D. Doyle.

Hofstadter, Stetjer and Heoht, JJ., concur.

Judgment modified, etc.
ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

COMM 2015-CCRE22

The undersigned, duly authorized officers of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as the Certificate Administrator (a “Certifying Servicer”) under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
dated as of March 1, 2015 (the “Agreement”), by and among, Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as Depositor,
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank,
 National Association, as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as
Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, here by certifies in
accordance with Section 10.11 of the Agreement:



| | A) | A review of such Certifying Servicer’s activities from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 (the “reporting period”)
and of such Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | B) | That, as to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Agreement, in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS

as Certificate Administrator



/s/ Ronaldo Reyes

BY: Ronaldo Reyes

Title: Vice President

Date: March 1, 2019



/s/ Karlene Collins

BY: Karlene Collins

Title: Assistant Vice President

Date: March 1, 2019
Exhibit 12.1



Financial Ratios



Our ratio of earnings to fixed charges and the ratio of our combined fixed charges and preference dividends to earnings for the years ended December 31,
1999 through 2003 are set forth in the table below.



|                                   |  |                          |  |      |  |      |  |      |  |     
|---------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | ---- |  | ---- |  | ---- |  | ----
|                                   |  | Years Ended December 31,
|                                   |  | 1999                     |  | 2000 |  | 2001 |  | 2002 |  | 2003
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |  |                         |  |     |  |     |  |     |  |    



The ratio of earnings
to fixed charges is computed by dividing earnings, by fixed charges. Earnings consist of loss from continuing operations before income taxes, plus fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense and that portion of
rental payments under operating leases we believe to be representative of interest. Earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges by $67.4 million, $18.8 million, $32.8 million, $48.8 and $174.1 million for the years ended December
31, 1999 through 2003, respectively.
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Advisory Committee on Women in the Services.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to section 10(a), Public Law 92-463, as amended, notice is hereby given of a forthcoming Quarterly Executive Committee Meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS). The purpose of the Executive Committee Meeting is to provide transitional training to the incoming 2001 Executive Committee members and an Awards Presentation for the 2000 Executive Committee members. The Requests for Information Review and the Awards presentation hosted by the Secretary of Defense are open to the public. All other portions are for training only and are not open to the public.

# DATES:

December 4, 2000, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

SECDEF Conference Room 3E869, The Pentagon, Washington, DC.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Colonel Susan E. Kolb, ARNGUS, DACOWITS and Military Women Matters, OASD (Force Management Policy), 4000 Defense Pentagon, Room 3D769, Washington, DC 20301-4000; telephone (703) 697-2122.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Meeting agenda:

## Monday, December 4, 2000

### Time and Event

10:00 a.m.: Requests for Information Review

1:45 p.m.: Executive Committee Awards Presentation (Secretary of Defense Conference—5C1042, Please be seated by 1:30 p.m.)

Dated: November 6, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate Federal Register Liaison, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-28864  Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-181

C. HOLMES, a/k/a Cynthia Holmes, a/k/a Cynthia Holmes, M.D., a/k/a Cynthia 

Collie Holmes,

 Petitioner,

v.

JAMES KEVIN HOLMES,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Permission to Appeal. (2:20-cv-03376-BHH-MHC)

Submitted: November 23, 2021 Decided: November 29, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

C. Holmes, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

C. Holmes petitions for permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) the district 

court’s order denying her motions in which she challenged the authority of the magistrate 

judge to enter nondispositive orders and to issue a report and recommendation in her case 

without her consent. The bankruptcy court has since granted Holmes’ motion to dismiss 

her bankruptcy case. Due to the dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case, this court “is 

without the power to afford effective relief.” See Central States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension 

Fund v. Central Transp., Inc., 841 F.2d 92, 96 (4th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we deny

Holmes’ motion to exceed length limitations for the petition and deny the petition to appeal 

as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 63 
          - [IB Docket No. 97-142, FCC 00-339] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Final rule; announcement of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

This document announces the effective date of rules. The Commission amended its rules regarding the prior notifications of foreign affiliations, and the rules contained information collection requirements. These rules become effective on November 9, 2000. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

The amendments to 47 CFR 63.11 published at 65 FR 60113, October 10, 2000, become effective on November 9, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Reitzel, Telecommunications Division, International Bureau, (202) 418-1499. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On September 12, 2000, the Commission adopted an order clarifying and revising rules regarding prior notifications of foreign affiliations, a summary of which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                    . See 65 FR 60113, October 10, 2000. Section 63.11 of the rules contained                           ( print page 67652)                        information collection requirements. We stated that § 63.11 contained “information collections that have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the                     **Federal Register**                     announcing the effective date of that section.” The information collections were approved by OMB on October 23, 2000. See OMB No. 3060-0686. This publication satisfies our statement that the Commission would publish a document announcing the effective date of the rules.                 

# List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 63

      - Communications common carriers
      - Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

Federal Communications Commission. 

Magalie Roman Salas, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 00-28887 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5

<S>                                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                   JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                                           319,108
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     15,833
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                                        2,548
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 417,589
<PP&E>                                                           196,454
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    59,293
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   634,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            323,623
<BONDS>                                                                0
<COMMON>                                                          10,257
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                       300,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     634,453
<SALES>                                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                   1,603
<CGS>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 651,607
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 4,696
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 (654,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      11,279
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             (643,421)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    21,995
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    (621,526)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       (.08)







</TABLE>
#### PIERCE v. STATE.

No. 25169.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 28, 1951.

No attorney on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Appellant pleaded guilty before the court following waiver of a jury trial, and appeals from a judgment assessing a four year term in the penitentiary for the offense of receiving stolen property of the value of $50 or more.

The proceedings appear to be regular, and no bills of exception or statement of facts are found in the record.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


       
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMETENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                   $4,551,931
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                               857,029	
<ALLOWANCES>                                725,000	
<INVENTORY>                                 217,956
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          5,385,681
<PP&E>                                    1,322,224
<DEPRECIATION>                              363,042
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            6,380,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     1,054,803
<BONDS>                                     371,719
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                  6,603,383 	
<OTHER-SE>                               (1,649,081)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              6,380,824
<SALES>                                   2,468,998
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          2,468,998	
<CGS>                                       464,219
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               464,219 	
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          3,440,235	
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           22,167	
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (1,299,564)
<INCOME-TAX>                             (1,299,564)	
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (1,299,564)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0	
<NET-INCOME>                             (1,299,564)	
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.39)	
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Daniel J. Moorhead, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report of Evolving Systems, Inc. on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2012 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Evolving Systems, Inc.

 
| /s/   Daniel J. Moorhead                            |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                |   |
| Daniel   J. Moorhead                                |   |
| Vice   President, Finance & Administration |   |
| August 30,   2013                              |   |

 

This certification is furnished with this Annual Report on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference.

 

----
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Suzanne Chadwick, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County,

August 15, 1957.

*Bleakley, Platt, Gilchrist & Walker*for petitioner.

George A. Brenner, S.

In this nncontested probate proceeding, the evidence adduced at the hearing established that the instruments propounded as the last will of decedent were executed in triplicate. Although such instruments contain a common form of attestation clause, the testimony established that the manner of execution did not comply in all respects with the recitals of such attestation clause in that the decedent did not sign in the presence of any of the subscribing witnesses and none of the subscribing witnesses signed in the physical presence of any other.

Execution occurred in the residence of decedent where she also maintained an office for the practice of her profession as a physician. The signing by the first witness occurred in the kitchen of decedent’s residence, within the hearing of the second witness, who was then in the portion of the residence used as an office. *209The signature by the second witness was affixed in the room used as an office and occurred within a few minutes after the signature by the first witness.

The evidence established that although the decedent did not subscribe her signature in the presence of either witness, she did acknowledge her signature to each of such witnesses, stating that the instrument was her will and requesting each of them to act as a subscribing witness. In each instance all three copies of the propounded instrument were signed by each of such witnesses.

Although the practice of executing more than one copy of a will has been criticized, if both or all of the copies of an instrument executed in multiplícate are produced, such instrument, if properly executed, may be admitted to probate as the will of decedent. *(Crossman*v. *Crossman,*95 N. Y. 145.) It is the failure to produce less than both or all of such executed copies which would require a denial of probate in the absence of adequate explanation of the nonproduction of all executed copies. *(Matter of Sheldon,*158 App. Div. 843.) The provisions of section 21 of the Decedent Estate Law do not require that the subscribing witnesses sign in the presence of each other. Accordingly, it has been held that the failure of both or all of the subscribing witnesses to sign in the presence of each other will not require a denial of probate, at least where the signatures of such witnesses are affixed about the same time or are so related in point of time as to be a succession of acts. *(Herrick*v. *Snyder,*27 Misc. 462.)

It appearing that the propounded instruments were executed in compliance with the provisions of section 21 of the Decedent Estate Law, and the court being satisfied that at the time of execution the decedent was of sound mind and free from restraint, and it further appearing that all executed copies of the instruments propounded as the will of decedent have been produced, the ribbon copy will be admitted to probate as the last will and testament of decedent.

Submit decree.