alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 

MARCUS O. TAITE-EL-BEY-TEY- )

WASHITOW TURNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 23-03542 (UNA)

)

 )

ALABAMA GOVERNOR ) 

KAY IVEY et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, an Alabama state prisoner, has filed a pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3. The complaint, naming Alabama’s three 

branches of government and baldly citing federal statutes, is incomprehensible. Federal courts 

lack “power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if,” as here, “they are so 

attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 

536–37 (1974). Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment generally immunizes states from suits 

filed against them in federal court.1

 Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order.

 

_________/s/______________

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER

Date: January 12, 2024 United States District Judge

1

 The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “The Judicial power of the United States 

shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the 

United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. 

amend. XI. The Supreme Court “long ago held that the Eleventh Amendment bars a citizen from bringing 

suit against the citizen’s own State in federal court, even though the express terms of the Amendment refer 

only to suits by citizens of another State.” Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 483 U.S. 

468, 472 (1987).
#### McNABB v. STATE.

No. 20663.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 18, 1939.

S. B. Ehrenwerth, of Houston, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Conviction is for rape; punishment is assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts. The only question that need be considered by us is whether or not the appellant was deprived of a statement of facts without fault on his part. The state’s attorney has admitted that the cause requires reversal and the trial judge stated that he would have granted a new trial but that by the time the full facts were disclosed to him he was without jurisdiction to do so, inasmuch as the motion for a new trial had been overruled and notice of appeal given and entered.

It appears that the court reporter who took down the shorthand notes became ill with a throat infection shortly after the trial had been completed. Counsel for appellant made frequent inquiries of the trial judge concerning said statement of facts and was informed that the reporter was dictating the same to another stenographer, capable of transcribing them. This work was never completed, however, and the reporter became so ill that he could not even talk. We quote from the court’s certificate regarding this matter, as follows: “The time provided by law having elapsed, and the judgment having long since became final, the term of court at which it was rendered having passed, and this Court being without any jurisdiction to set the judgment aside and grant a new trial, the Court makes this certificate that the defendant has been deprived of the statement of facts herein without any fault on the part of defendant or his counsel. Neither the Court nor State’s counsel have been able, from recollection, to prepare a statement of facts herein.”

Having been deprived of a statement of the facts without fault on his part, and having shown all the diligence required by law, the appellant is entitled to a reversal. See Little v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 164, *97*S.W.2d 479 and the authorities there cited.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**

**FAA -**  **20 13**  **- 0603**  Docket Number
**20 09**  **- SW**  **- 079**  **- AD**  Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket Bell Helicopt er Alert Service Bulletin 206L - 09 - 158, Revision B, dated June 1, 2011 .


### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DURING THE HO URS OF:**  9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1583 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1583

 To amend title 11 of the United States Code to make nondischargeable 
 debts for postpetition fees payable to a membership association with 
 respect to the debtor's interest in, and for the period during which 
     the debtor occupied, a dwelling unit that has condominium or 
                         cooperative ownership.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 1993

   Mr. Hyde introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 11 of the United States Code to make nondischargeable 
 debts for postpetition fees payable to a membership association with 
 respect to the debtor's interest in, and for the period during which 
     the debtor occupied, a dwelling unit that has condominium or 
                         cooperative ownership.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness to Condominium and 
Cooperative Owners Amendment of 1993''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 523(a) of title 11, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (11) by striking ``or'' at the end,
            (2) in paragraph (12) by inserting ``or'' at the end, and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(13) for a fee that becomes payable after the order for 
        relief to a membership association with respect to the debtor's 
        interest in a dwelling unit that has condominium or cooperative 
        ownership, if such fee is payable for a period during which the 
        debtor occupied such dwelling.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act 
and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by section 2 
shall not apply with respect to cases commenced under title 11 of the 
United States Code before the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
No. 72-982.

#### Rosenberg *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir.

Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harold Knapper, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J., at hearing, trial and sentence), rendered October 6, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and third degrees and sentencing him, as a predicate felony offender to concurrent terms of 8 to 16 years’ and to 7 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

The complainants, who had been robbed by defendant, separately viewed books of photographs when one complainant yelled out, "That’s him”, causing the other complainant to enter the room and confirm the identification. Situations that are not the result of improper conduct by law enforcement officials do not warrant suppression or violate due process. *(People v Shepard,*162 AD2d 226.) Furthermore, the court found that there was an independent source for such identification, with which we are in agreement.

The introduction into evidence of a pen that was similar to the one used in the crime was not an abuse of the trials court’s discretion. A facsimile or model is admissible in evidence to assist the jury where it is relevant to a matter at issue and "fairly represents” the items it seeks to symbolize. *(People v Del Vermo,*192 NY 470, 483.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
#### TOSH v. DRYMAN et al.

No. 5465.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

Feb. 29, 1940.

Thomas Shearon and Perkins & Perkins, all of Rusk, for appellant.

Guinn & Guinn, of Rusk, Malone, Lipscomb, White & Seay, of Dallas, and Lasse-t'er, Simpson, Spruiell & Lowry, of Tyler, for appellees. >

' HALL, Justice.

This suit, a bill of review as provided by' R.S. Article 4328, was filed by appellant in the County Court of Cherokee County, seeking to set aside and vacate certain orders theretofore entered in said court in the matter of the guardianship of the estate of James Emil Stubblefield, Samantha' Stub-blefield,. Evelyn Stubblefield, and .Nancy El*305len Stubblefield, minors, authorizing -and confirming sale of real estate belonging to the estate of said minors, and pursuant to which orders conveyance of the real estate had been made. The county court sustained a general demurrer to plaintiff’s bill of review and dismissed the case on the grounds that the county court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine same because conveyances had been made pursuant to the orders attacked. An appeal was taken to the District Court of Cherokee County where a like judgment was entered upon the same grounds, sustaining a general demurrer and dismissing the suit. An appeal was perfected to this court.

It is agreed that the controlling question presented by the appeal is: “After conveyance has been consummated pursuant to the orders attacked, does the county court have jurisdiction to entertain a bill of review as provided by R.S.1925, Article 4328, seeking to vacate the orders of the probate court granting and confirming the guardian’s sale of land?”

The precise question was by this court certified to the Supreme Court, and answered in the negative, in the case of Farley v. Dorsey, Tex.Com.App., 135 S.W.2d 89. On authority of that case the judgment of the district court sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the cause for want of jurisdiction is affirmed.
Summary of 2005 Base Salaries and Cash Bonus Awards



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
  
 Summary of 2005 Base Salaries Payable to Named Executive Officers 
 and Cash Bonuses Awarded to Named Executive Officers for 2004 
  
 On January 14, 2005 and February 8, 2005, the Compensation Committees of the Boards of Directors of the Corporation and its subsidiary, The Bryn Mawr
Trust Company (the “Bank”), set the base salaries to be paid to the Corporation’s Named Executive Officers for 2005. The base salaries represent increases from 3% to 4% over the Named Executive Officers previously effective base
salaries. At the same time, the Compensation Committees awarded cash bonuses for 2004. The bonuses awarded to Mr. Peters and Mr. Pickering were required by their agreements with the Corporation and the Bank. Mr. Keefer’s bonus was based on an
incentive program for 2004. The bonuses awarded to the other Named Executive Officers were to recognize the individual efforts of those Named Executive Officers in 2004. 
  

							
	 Name and Principal Position

	  	2005 Base Salary

	  	2004 Cash Bonus


	 Frederick C. Peters II
 Chairman, President & CEO
	  	$	320,282	  	$	20,000
			
	 Robert J. Ricciardi
 Executive Vice President – Chief
Credit Policy Officer & Secretary
	  	$	170,470	  	$	8,000
			
	 John Pickering
 Executive Vice President – Wealth
Management Division
	  	$	197,125	  	$	50,000
			
	 Alison E. Gers
 Executive Vice President –
Administration & Operations
	  	$	167,530	  	$	9,000
			
	 Joseph Keefer
 Executive Vice President – Chief
Lending Officer
	  	$	154,536	  	$	20,000
EXHIBIT 32.2








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund Plus (the “Fund”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2010  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.











/s/Kenneth J. Cutillo


Kenneth J. Cutillo


Principal Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer


Arch Street VIII, Inc., as


Managing General Partner of


Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund Plus,


A Limited Partnership








Date:           April 6, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Eiropas Savienības C 42A/2017

| | ISSN 1977-0952 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 42A |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 60. gadagājums2017. gada 9. februāris |

ISSN 1977-0952

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 42A

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

60. gadagājums2017. gada 9. februāris

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Atzinumi |
| | ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS |
| | Eurojust |
| 2017/C 42 A/01 | Paziņojums par izsludināto vakanci uz administratīvā direktora amatu (pakāpe AD 14) Eurojust – Hāga (Nīderlande) – 17/EJ/01 | 1 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

V   Atzinumi

ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS

Eurojust

2017/C 42 A/01

Paziņojums par izsludināto vakanci uz administratīvā direktora amatu (pakāpe AD 14) Eurojust – Hāga (Nīderlande) – 17/EJ/01

Eurojust

1

---

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

V Atzinumi

ADMINISTRATĪVAS PROCEDŪRAS

Eurojust

| 9.2.2017 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CA 42/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2017

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CA 42/1

---

Paziņojums par izsludināto vakanci uz administratīvā direktora amatu (pakāpe AD 14) Eurojust – Hāga (Nīderlande) – 17/EJ/01

(2017/C 042 A/01)

Eurojust aicina iesniegt pieteikumus uz Eurojust administratīvā direktora vakanci. Eurojust tika izveidots 2002. gadā, lai veicinātu dalībvalstu kompetento iestāžu sadarbības efektivitāti, risinot nopietnu pārrobežu un organizēto noziedzību. Eurojust sastāv no prokuroru, tiesnešu vai policijas darbinieku Kolēģijas, kuri ir atbildīgi par aģentūras organizāciju un darbību. Administratīvais direktors, Kolēģijas prezidenta uzraudzībā, ir atbildīgs par Eurojust ikdienas vadību un personāla pārvaldi. Lūdzu, apmeklējiet mūsu tīmekļa vietni, lai iegūtu detalizētu informāciju par vakanci un pieteikšanās nosacījumiem:

http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/careers/vacancies/Pages/Vacancies.aspx

Pieteikumu iesniegšanas termiņš: 2017. gada 17. marts, pusnakts, Centrāleiropas laiks.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<MULTIPLIER>                                1
<CURRENCY>                       U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                      SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                             1
<CASH>                             17,098,313
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                      13,807,217
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   36,774,505
<PP&E>                              9,504,696
<DEPRECIATION>                      3,167,068
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    105,681,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              21,659,661
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                              100,621
<OTHER-SE>                         64,413,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      105,681,901
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   75,760,198
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      70,982,718
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    227,565
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     4,549,916
<INCOME-TAX>                        1,385,835
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 3,164,081
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                        3,164,081
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.22
        


</TABLE>
#### Margaret Trainor, Respondent, v Oasis Roller World, Inc., Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J., on mem decision of Richard Lane, J.), granting defendant’s motion to set aside the jury verdict only to the extent of reducing the damages award from $2,120,000 to $695,000, and judgment therein of said court (Richard Lane, J.), entered on April 4, 1990, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

During the time that plaintiff and a friend were skating at defendant’s roller rink, two incidents involving groups of rowdy teen-age patrons were brought to the attention of the management. A third incident involving those persons resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries, which are permanent and degenerative.

The evidence demonstrates that the defendant had actual notice of the unruly activity of these patrons, had the right to control or eject these patrons, and failed in its duty to supervise the roller rink properly. Those cases relied upon by defendant are inapplicable as there were no prior warnings to the roller rink managements. Nothing in the plaintiffs case can be read to present any theory of recovery other than the breach of duty to supervise. Accordingly, we find the unobjected-to general verdict charge to have been proper.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of LeCroy Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 12, 2003 and as amended by Form 10-Q/A filed with the
Securities Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott D. Kantor,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:

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

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.

/s/ Scott D. Kantor
------------------------
Scott D. Kantor
Chief Financial Officer
February 9, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       26
#### UNIVERSAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Odessa LAMPKIN et al., Appellees.

No. 10935.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

April 2, 1941.

C. O. Hamlin, of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Frank W. Nesbitt, of Corpus Christi, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without written opinion, on authority of Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 294.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 233 (Monday, December 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75689-75690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30745]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-587-001]


Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

November 28, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 24, 2000, Paiute Pipeline Company 
(Paiute) submitted a filing to comply with the Commission's order 
issued on October 27, 2000 in Docket Nos. RM96-1-014, et al. Paiute 
states that in its order the Commission accepted, subject to refund, 
Paiute's tariff filing in Docket No. RP00-587-000 to implement 
imbalance netting and trading, and directed Paiute to submit further 
information regarding its imposition of transportation charges related 
to imbalance netting and trading. Paiute states that it has submitted 
the instant filing to comply with the Commission's directive.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered

[[Page 75690]]

by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, 
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be 
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-
208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30745 Filed 12-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M