alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Robert J. SMITH, Susan E. Smith a/k/a Mr. P., Ltd. d/b/a Sonny’s Restaurants, Debtors.

Bankruptcy No. 80-02233.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E. D. Wisconsin.

Aug. 3, 1981.

R. Arthur Ludwig, Ludwig & Shlimovitz, Milwaukee, Wis., for trustee.

Randall D. Crocker, Lichtsinn, Haensel, Bastían & Erchul, S.C., Milwaukee, Wis., for debtors.

*933MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

C.N. CLEVERT, Bankruptcy Judge.

Relying upon Wisconsin law (§ 815.18(30) Stats.) and the equitable powers of the bankruptcy court, the trustee in bankruptcy has asked that the debtors be denied all of their exemptions on the ground that they committed a fraud upon the court by failing to perform various obligations while they were debtors-in-possession under Chapter 11.

The trustee sought to support his objection to the allowance of the debtors’ exemptions by proving:

> A. The debtors failed to make required monthly reports to the court;

> B. The debtors failed to file timely up to date reports;

> C. The debtors failed to supply the creditors’ committee with various records, failed to open special tax accounts and failed to pay trust fund taxes as ordered by the court;

> D. The debtors failed to pay their Chapter 11 business expenses;

> E. The debtors paid themselves $5,850.00 during their Chapter 11;

> F. Debtor Robert Smith directed his employees to order merchandise on credit in order to raise money to pay taxes;

> G. The debtors hired and paid an accountant without court authorization;

> H. The debtors paid their attorney without court authorization; and

> I. The debtors failed to file federal tax forms.

> * * * * * *

DISCUSSION

The essence of the trustee’s objection is that the debtors perpetrated a fraud upon this court. However, at the hearing on the trustee’s objection held on April 10 and June 9 the evidence he presented did not even remotely suggest how, if at all, the court or creditors were mislead. Furthermore, there was nothing in the record to indicate that the debtors intended to mislead anyone or that the debtors made any misrepresentations during the course of their Chapter 11. Therefore, the evidence failed to support the trustee’s fraud allegation. *In re Matera (Carini v. Matera),*592 F.2d 378, 5 B.C.D. 56 (7th Cir. 1979).

The trustee’s objection to the allowance of the debtors’ exemptions is denied.
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Annual Report of AEI Income & Growth Fund
24  LLC  (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB  for  the  period  ended
December  31,  2004,  as filed with the Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on  the date hereof (the "Report"), the  undersigned,
Robert  P.  Johnson, President of AEI Fund Management XXI,  Inc.,
the  Managing Member of the Company, and Patrick W. Keene,  Chief
Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc., each certify,
pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. 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 Company.




                         /s/ Robert P Johnson
                             Robert P. Johnson, President
                             AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                             Managing Member
                             March 18, 2005



                         /s/ Patrick  W Keene
                             Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                             AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                             Managing Member
                             March 18, 2005
#### Gahan, Respondent, vs. William F. Arndt Company, Appellant.

*May 9*

June *18, 1928.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *Bird, Smith, Oko-neski & Puchner*of Wausau and *Geo. H. Kriete*of Chicago, Ill., and oral argument by *C. F. Smith.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *O’Melia & Kaye*of Rhinelander, and oral argument by *A.-J. O’Melia.*

Eschweiler, J.

This action presents the same situation and is controlled by *Gahan v. Lymer,*decided herewith *(ante,*p. 313, 220 N. W. 532).

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
#### In re FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF MINNEAPOLIS, a United States of America corporation, Plaintiff, v. David Anthony WHITEBREAD, a/k/a David A. Whitebread, and Jeanne Marie Whitebread, a/k/a Jeanne M. Whitebread, Defendants. Arising in or Related to Bankruptcy Case of David Anthony Whitebread, a/k/a David A. Whitebread, and Jeanne Marie Whitebread, a/k/a Jeanne M. Whitebread, Debtors.

Bankruptcy No. 4-80-1698(N).

Adv. No. 4-81-477(O).

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota.

March 4, 1982.

Barbara G. Stuart, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.

Richard P. Tuohy, St. Paul, Minn., for debtors.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

KENNETH G. OWENS, Bankruptcy Judge.

This adversary proceeding involves a mortgage on the homestead of the debtors. The mortgage is dated May 17, 1979. The debtors assumed the mortgage upon purchase of the premises on July 24, 1979. There is a default in the payments due on the mortgage. The plaintiff requests that the automatic stay be terminated so that it may commence foreclosure proceedings. The monthly payments due were $493.00 plus $18.28 late charge less an insurance adjustment for six monthly payments in 1981. Final hearing was held on January 6, 1982, plaintiff appearing by Barbara G. Stuart and debtors by Richard P. Tuohy.

The chapter 13 case was commenced by petition filed on October 20, 1980. At that time, the default in monthly payments on the mortgage totalled $2,076.54. Since that time, through December 31, 1981, the payments due totalled $6,942.04, including late charges, and payments made totalled $5,380.00, resulting in a further default in payments of $1,562.04, for a total default as of December 31, 1981, of $3,638.58. Under the chapter 13 plan, confirmed by the court on January 5, 1981, the debtors undertook to “cure defaults within a reasonable time and maintain payments due on the mortgage”.

*193It is apparent that debtors have not maintained the payments due postpetition. This court has previously determined that more than 12 months is ordinarily not a reasonable time to cure a default in prepetition homestead mortgage payments under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1322(b)(5) (see *First National Bank v. Smith,*ADV 4-81-160, BKY 4-81-625). It is equally apparent therefore that debtors have not cured the default in payments due prepetition within a reasonable time.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The automatic stay provided by 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a) is terminated with respect to the plaintiff’s mortgage on real property known as Lot 13, Block 2, Netta Shores Addition, in Anoka County, Minnesota.

2. This order is stayed until March 31, 1982, to permit the debtors to (a) make payment to plaintiff of $3,638.58 plus payments due in 1982 or (b) negotiate other arrangements for such payments with plaintiff.

3. The foregoing memorandum order shall constitute findings of fact and conclusions of law under Bankruptcy Rule 752.

Dated: March 4, 1982.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-2969EA

_____________

Evelyn J. Walker, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: February 4, 1999

Filed: February 10, 1999

_____________

Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Evelyn J. Walker appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing

with prejudice Walker's untimely action for review of the Social Security

Commissioner's unfavorable decision. Having carefully reviewed the record and the

parties' briefs, we affirm for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's report adopted

by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Wayne J. Vespoli, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Advanced Lighting Technologies, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report, any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: October 26, 2006   /s/ Wayne J. Vespoli   Wayne J. Vespoli  Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 99.3 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

1177 Avenue of the Americas

New York NY 10036   Report of Independent Accountants  Fleet National Bank ("Fleet"), Servicer
and
Fleet Home Equity Loan, LLC, Depositor We
have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management
Report on Internal Control over the Servicing of Securitized Mortgage Loans,
that Fleet maintained effective internal control over the servicing of
securitized mortgage loans as of March 31, 2004, based upon the criteria for
effective internal control established in "Internal Control - Integrated
Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission.  Fleet's management is
responsible for maintaining effective internal control over the servicing of
the securitized mortgage loans.  Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination. Our
examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly,
included obtaining an understanding of internal control over the servicing of
the securitized mortgage loans, testing and evaluating the design and operating
effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances.We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion. Because
of inherent limitations in any internal control, misstatement due to error or
fraud may occur and not be detected.Also, projections of any evaluation of internal control over the
servicing of securitized mortgage loans to future periods are subject to the
risk that the internal control may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures
may deteriorate. In
our opinion, management's assertion that Fleet maintained effective internal
control over the servicing of securitized mortgage loans as of March 31, 2004,
is fairly stated, in all material respects, based upon the criteria for
effective internal control established in "Internal Control - Integrated
Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission. /s/PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP
May 28, 2004
Exhibit 10.26
 First Amendment to the
FOSTER WHEELER INC.
1995 Stock Option Plan
(As Amended and Restated as of September 24, 2002)
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 1.
    
    By revising the last paragraph of Section 5(h) of the Plan in its entirety to
read as follows:For purposes of the Plan, Change in Control Price means the higher of (i)
the highest reported sales price, regular way, of a Common Share in any
transaction reported on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Tape or other
national exchange on which such shares are listed during the 60-day period
prior to and including the date of a Change of Control, or (ii) if the
Change of Control is the result of a tender or exchange offer or a Business
Combination, the highest price per Common Share paid in such tender or
exchange offer or Business Combination; provided, however, that (x) in the
case of an option which (A) is held by an optionee who is an officer or
director of the Company or Parent and is subject to Section 16(b) of the
Exchange Act and (B) was granted within 240 days of the Change of Control,
the Change of Control Price for such option shall be the fair market value
of the Common Shares on the date such option is exercised or deemed
exercised; (y) in the case of an ISO option, the Change of Control Price
shall be in all cases the fair market value of the Common Shares on the date
such option is exercised; and (z) with the consent of the optionee, in the
case of an option granted to a U.S. taxpayer which vests after December 31,
2004, the fair market value of the Common Shares on the date the option is
exercised or deemed exercised. To the extent that the consideration paid in
any such transaction described above consists in whole or in part of
securities or other non-cash




---



##### 



consideration, the value of such securities or other non-cash consideration
shall be determined in the sole discretion of the Company Board.2.
    
    Except as provided above, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 FOSTER WHEELER INC.By:
    
    /s/ Raymond J. MilchovichName:
    
    Raymond J. MilchovichTitle:
    
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
 2
# DOE National Laboratories, Facilities, and Programs

The Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) manages the Scientific and Technical Information Program (STIP).  STIP coordinates the submission of research and development results or scientific and technical information (STI) among the DOE national laboratories, facilities, and programs.  OSTI maintains the Department of Energy (DOE) corporate STI submission system, Energy Link (E-Link) (link is external).

DOE O 241.1B (link is external) is the primary DOE directive on STI management and outlines requirements, roles, and responsibilities.  Scientific findings, or STI, come in a range of types, such as:

                                                - Accepted Manuscripts
                                                - Book/Monograph
                                                - Conference Paper/Presentation or Proceedings
                                                - Patents
                                                - Program Documents

                                                - Scientific Datasets
                                                - Scientific/Technical Software
                                                - Thesis/Dissertation
                                                - Technical/Workshop Report
                                                - Scientific Videos

STI may be classified, Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information (UCNI), Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), or unclassified with no access restrictions. OSTI also maintains DOE CODE, the software services platform and search tool that allows for the submission and announcement of DOE-funded scientific and business software.

**If you are an employee of a DOE national laboratory, please reference the national laboratory points of contact in the STIP Community Listing.**

For STI Submission Questions or Concerns Contact: stip@osti.gov or elink_Helpdesk@osti.gov.

                                - DOE National Laboratories, Facilities, and Programs
                                - DOE Financial Assistance Recipients and Grantees
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).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Philippine Navy Contingent on a Roll as RIMPAC Enters Next Phase

By Kenny Turco, CommanderU.S. 3rd Fleet Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60413

Summary Calendar

 

LOUIS JAMES CLAY, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MON CREE ALLEN; MARY R. THOMPSON,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:00-CV-39-BrS

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Louis James Clay, Jr., Mississippi Inmate No. 08452,

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in

favor of defendant Mon Cree Allen, and the district court’s

dismissal without prejudice of his claims against Mary R. Thompson

for lack of service.
2

Clay does not address the merits of the district court’s

grant of summary judgment in either his initial or reply brief.

When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district

court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not

appealed that judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins,

985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Clay argues that the district court erred in dismissing

his complaint against the court reporter, Thompson, pursuant to

FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m), for failure to provide a valid address for

service. This court reviews a dismissal for failure to effect

timely service of process for an abuse of discretion. Lindsey v.

United States R.R. Retirement Bd., 101 F.3d 444, 445 (5th Cir.

1996). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the

district court did not abuse its discretion. See Rochon v. Dawson,

828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987) (plaintiff may not remain

silent but must attempt to remedy any apparent service defects).

Clay argues that the district court erred by denying his

requests for appointment of counsel. The court is not required to

appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff raising a 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 claim in the absence of “exceptional circumstances.” Ulmer

v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). Based upon our

review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion because Clay has not shown such exceptional

circumstances are present in this case.
3

Clay also states that he wishes to “resubmit” his motion

to recuse District Court Judge David Bramlette. Clay also moved

for recusal of Judge Bramlette during a prior appeal of this case.

See Clay v. Allen, 242 F.3d 679, 680-81 (5th Cir. 2001). We

refused to consider the argument because it was raised for the

first time on appeal. See id. (citing United States v. Sanford,

157 F.3d 987, 988-89 (5th Cir. 1988)). On remand, Clay did not

reurge his recusal motion in the district court, and we again

decline to consider the argument.

AFFIRMED.