alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Citizens’ Savings Bank of St. Louis, Appellee, v. John T. Stewart, Appellant.

Appeal: transcript : evidence.

*Appeal from Council Bluffs Superior Court.*— Hon. E. E. Ayles-worth, Judge.

Wednesday, January 28, 1891.

This is an action in equity by which the plaintiff seeks to set aside a decree quieting the title to certain real estate, and for other equitable relief. There was a trial upon the merits, and a decree for the plaintiff. The defendant *appeals.*

Dismissed.

*J. Lyman,*for appellant.

*Flicleinger Bros,*and *L. W. Ross,*for appellee.

Rothrock, J.

It appears from the record that the action was tried in the month of June, 1889. An appeal was taken in July of the same year. The evidence was reduced to writing by a short-hand reporter. The appellee moves to dismiss the appeal because the evidence in the case was not preserved and properly certified within the time required by statute. We think the motion must be sustained. It appears from the record that the original short-hand notes of the evidence were certified by the judge and the short-hand reporter, at the close of the trial. After the trial the short-hand reporter prepared a type-written transcript of the evidence, in duplicate, and a copy *720thereof was handed to the judge who tried the case, for his use in deciding the case. Neither the original nor the duplicate was ever at any time certified to by the reporter as being a correct translation of the original notes. After the decision of the case, the defendant’s attorney procured the copy used by the judge, and made a written copy of it, and treated and used it as a transcript. It was necessary that the transcript of the short-hand notes should have been properly certified by the reporter. Until that is done the transcript does not become a part of the record. *Richards v. Lounsbury,*65 Iowa, 587; *Merrill v. Bowe,*69 Iowa, 653. The last-cited case is exactly in point. As the evidence is not in the record, the cause cannot be tried anew in this court, and it is in no condition for review in any manner.'

The appeal will be dismissed.
EXHIBIT 21

AMERICAN COMMUNITY PROPERTIES TRUST
CONSOLIDATED ENTITES AND SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
DECEMBER 31, 2001

At December 31, 2001, the financial statements of the following entities were consolidated with those of the Registrant in the Consolidated Financial Statements incorporated herein:

- American Community Properties Trust, a Maryland business trust
- American Housing Management Company, a Delaware corporation
- American Housing Properties L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
- American Land Development U.S., Inc., a Maryland corporation
- American Rental Management Company, a Delaware corporation
- American Rental Properties Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust
- Brisas de Parque Escorial, Inc., a Puerto Rico corporation
- Fox Chase Apartments General Partnership, a Maryland general partnership
- Headen House Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- IGP Group Corp., a Puerto Rico corporation
- Interstate General Properties Limited Partnership S.E., a Maryland limited partnership
- Lancaster Apartments Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- LDA Group, a Delaware limited liability company
- Land Development Associates S.E., a Puerto Rico partnership
- New Forest Apartments General Partnership, a Maryland general partnership
- Palmer Apartments Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- St. Charles Community, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
- Wakefield Terrace Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Wakefield Third Age Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership

At December 31, 2001, the Registrant and its consolidated entities had the following significant unconsolidated subsidiaries:

- Alturas del Senorial Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Bannister Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Bayamon Gardens Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Brookside Gardens Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Carolina Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Colinas de San Juan Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Crossland Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- ELI GP, Inc., a Puerto Rico corporation
- ELI S.E., a Puerto Rico special partnership
- Essex Apartments Associates, a Virginia limited partnership
- Huntington Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Jardines de Caparra Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Lakeside Apartments Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Maryland Cable Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- Monserrate Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- New Center Associates Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
- San Anton Associates, a Massachusetts limited partnership
- Turabo Limited Dividend Partnership, a Massachusetts limited partnership
- Valle del Sol Limited Partnership, a Maryland limited partnership
#### Thomas Peck, Plaintiff, v. J. P. Conner, Judge, Defendant.

Injunction: contempt : parties.

Monday, February 2, 1891.

Proceeding- by *certiorari to*review the legality of proceedings had before the defendant, as judge of the sixteenth judicial district, against the plaintiff for contempt.

*F. M. Powers,*for plaintiff.

*Spurrier, Coffin & Hoyt,*for defendant.

Given. J.

The record shows that E. W. and L. L. Peck were ■enjoined by decree of the district court of Carroll county from keeping ■a saloon on premises described ; that afterwards they were charged with the violation of said injunction, and this plaintiff appeared and answered thereto, and was adjudged to be in contempt for a violation ■of said decree and injunction. He presents himself in this proceeding by the name of Thomas Beck, and claims that, as the proceedings for injunction and contempt were not against Thomas Peck, the defendant proceeded illegally in adjudging Thomas Peck guilty of the contempt. We have no doubt whatever, from the record, that this plaintiff is the identical person who appeared in the former proceedings and answered therein as one of the parties defendant. This being so, the court did not proceed illegally, and the petition of the plaintiff is, therefore, DISMISSED.
[Logo]
Bank of America

August 12, 1997

                                                              Commercial Banking
Mr. Ken Ross
Chief Financial Officer
Coffee People, Inc.
15100 S.W. Koll Parkway, Suite J
Beaverton, OR  97006

Dear Mr. Ross:

This letter is to acknowledge that Coffee People, Inc. ("Borrower") has breached
Paragraphs  8.3,  8.3A,  8.4  and  9.12 of its  Business  Loan  Agreement  dated
September 4, 1996  ("Agreement")  , between  Borrower and Bank of America  NT&SA
("Bank").

Paragraph 8.3 of the Agreement  requires the Borrower maintain a minimum Current
Ratio of 1.25:1.  As of June 30, 1997, the Borrower  reported a Current Ratio of
0.96:1.

Paragraph 8.3A of the Agreement  requires the Borrower  maintain a maximum ratio
of Total  Liabilities to Tangible Net Worth of 1.50:1.  As of June 30, 1997, the
Borrower reported a ratio of 4.41:1.

Paragraph  8.4 of the  Agreement  requires the Borrower  maintain a minimum Cash
Flow Ratio of 2.00:1.  As of June 30, 1997, the Borrower  reported negative Cash
Flow of $791,000.

Paragraph  9.12 of the  Agreement  requires  the  Borrower  not incur a Material
Adverse Change in the Borrower's  financial  position.  As of June 30, 1997, the
Borrower  reported  a  Material  Adverse  Change  in the  form  of a  $5,500,000
extraordinary charge to earnings for store closures and related restructuring.

The Bank waives  compliance with the breached  covenants  through June 30, 1997,
upon the following conditions:

      The Borrower  maintain a Minimum Cash Balance of $2,400,000 as reported on
      the  Borrower's  financial  statements.

      The Borrower will provide year to date information  detailing  individual
      store revenues and earnings.

      The Borrower  will  provide  to the  Bank  monthly  company  prepared
      interim financial statements.

As of August 12, 1997, the Borrower has met the above conditions.

This waiver applies only to the breached  covenants.  This waiver does not apply
to any  other  breach  that may now  exist or may  occur  after the date of this
waiver with respect to the breached  covenant or any other term,  condition,  or
covenant of the  Agreement.  All other  terms and  conditions  of the  Agreement
remain unchanged.

Sincerely,

/s/ Gregg Christoffersen
----------------------------
Gregg Christoffersen
Credit Manager
#### State, Respondent, vs. Wagner, Appellant. (Mae Wilson Case.)

*January 15*

February *10, 1942.*

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Frank E. Hebert*of Tomahawk, and for the respondent on the brief of the *Attorney General, William A. Plats,*assistant attorney general, and *Donald Schnabel,*district attorney of Lincoln county.

Fairchild, J.

The claims of error and the questions involved in this case are those considered and determined in the case of *State v. Wagner*(*William Cochrane), ante,*p. 634, *6432 N. W. (2d) 229. For the reasons stated in that case the judgment in this case must be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
|SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION | EXHIBIT 31.2
|------------------------- | ------------



I, Eleanor J. Whitehurst, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Resource Bankshares Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:



a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluations; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



c) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



d) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |                          
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Date: March 12, 2004 |  | /s/ Eleanor J. Whitehurst
|                     |  | Eleanor J. Whitehurst
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of ING Insurance
Company of America (the "Company") hereby certifies that, to the officer's
knowledge, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


May 12, 2005                         By     /s/ Brian D. Comer
------------                            --------------------------------------
   (Date)                                       Brian D. Comer
                                                President
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



The undersigned officer
of Albany Molecular Research, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that to his knowledge the Company’s
annual report on Form 10-K to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification
is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”)
promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the Exchange Act. In accordance
with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes
of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.



|Date: August 27, 2013 |        |                                      
|--------------------- | ------ | -------------------------------------
|                      |        | /s/ Thomas E. D’Ambra                
|                      | Name:  | Thomas E. D’Ambra, Ph.D.             
|                      | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                      |        |
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86848-86849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25300]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

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: October 31, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby

[[Page 86849]]

gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 25, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
409 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-166, K2025-164.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-25300 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**     In connection with the annual report of Waste Services, Inc.(the “Company”) onForm 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), we, David Sutherland-Yoest, Chief ExecutiveOfficer, and Mark A. Pytosh, Chief Financial Officer certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that to the best of our knowledge: (i)     the Report fully complies with the requirements of    section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange    Act of 1934; and (ii)     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all    material respects, the financial condition and results of    operations of the Company.March 13, 2006     /s/ David Sutherland-Yoest       David Sutherland-Yoest     Chief Executive Officer      /s/ Mark A. Pytosh       Mark A. Pytosh     Chief Financial OfficerThe foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as apart of this report or on a separate disclosure document.
#### Frye and another, Appellants, vs. Pestrui and others, Respondents.

For the appellants : *Max H. Strehlow*of Green Bay.

For the respondents Pestrui: *Eastman & Rose*of Mari-nette.

For the respondent Marinette Hotel Company: *Harvey C. Hartwig*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
#### J. W. BAXTER v. T. F. BAXTER.

*Practice*— Injunction—Personal *Property Exemption.*

The title to personal property cannot be tried by injunction ; *Therefore?*where a Sheriff levied upon certain personal property, which had been allotted to the defendant in the execution as his personal property exemption and remained in his possession, and was restrained by injunction from selling the same ; *Held,*to he error.

*119InjunctioN heard at Eall Term, 1875, of Currituck Superior Court, before *Eure, J.*

The defendant, as Sheriff of Currituck County, levied on certain articles of personal property belonging to the plaintiff. Thereupon the plaintiff applied for, and obtained an order restraining the Sheriff from selling the same, on the ground that said articles had already been assigned to him, as his personal property exemption ; and that they were not present or in view of the Sheriff at the time of the alleged levy.

From said order the defendant appealed.

*Messrs. Gilliam*Pruden, for plaintiff.

*Mr. W. JSF. H. Smith,*for defendant.

Eairgloth, J.

This action was brought to restrain the defendant, T. E. Baxter, as Sheriff, from selling under an execution certain personal property, which had been assigned to the plaintiff, J. *W.*Baxter, as his personal property exemption, which is still in his possession.

The argument before us referred to the sufficiency of certain levies made by the Sheriff, and to the effect of an order made in the Bankrupt Court. We do not enter into these questions, as we are of opinion that the plaintiff has no cause of action and therefore cannot maintain it, on the ground that his possession of said property has not been disturbed by the defendants.

Should they seize it, as it is alleged they threatened to do, the plaintiffs may continue their possession -under C. C. P. § 177, (sub § 4), and try the title regularly and not by injunction.

The practice of trying title to *'personal*property by injunction has not been adopted in this State.

There is error.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed and action dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,069,487
<SECURITIES>                                 5,735,168
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,093,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                    35,748
<INVENTORY>                                  1,057,688
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,328,374
<PP&E>                                         975,754
<DEPRECIATION>                                 825,988
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,240,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,937,703
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,994,623
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,691,736)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,240,590
<SALES>                                      3,018,948
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,018,948
<CGS>                                          300,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  814,974
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,367,827
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                878,316
<INCOME-TAX>                                   178,201
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            700,115
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   700,115
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our reports dated June 1, 2007, accompanying the consolidated financial statements (which report expressed anunqualified opinion and contains an explanatory paragraph relating to Magma Design Automation’s adoption of the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), *Share-Based Payment*) and management’s assessmentof the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting (which report expressed an unqualified opinion on management’s assessment and on the effective operation of internal control over financial reporting) included in the AnnualReport of Magma Design Automation, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended April 1, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration statements of Magma Design Automation, Inc. on Forms S-3 (File No.333-141886 and File No. 333-108346) and Forms S-8 (File No. 333-74278, File No. 333-92324, File No. 333-108348, File No. 333-112326, File No. 333-122656, and File No. 333-132333). 

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

June 1, 2007