alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lederer, Appellant, vs. Estate of Kohn, Respondent.

*September*24

*October 11, 1898.*

*Appeal: Bill of exceptions.*

The supreme court cannot review the evidence in a case tried by the court unless exceptions are taken to the findings of fact and preserved in the bill of exceptions.

Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county: D. H. JOHNSON, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Appellant presented a ciaim to the county court of Milwaukee county against tbe estate of Ignatz Kohn, which was disallowed. An appeal was taken to tbe circuit court. Tbe matter was beard before a referee, who found in favor of the appellant on a portion of her claim. Tbe respondent moved to set aside tbe referee’s report and finding, and, after argument, tbe circuit judge made new findings setting aside the findings of tbe referee and disallowing the appellant’s claim. *663A judgment was entered, affirming tbe judgment of tbe county court, except as to costs. This appeal is from that portion of tbe judgment by which appellant’s claim is disallowed and tbe judgment of tbe county court is affirmed.

For the appellant there was a brief by *Chas. G. Woolcock,*attorney, and *Devoid S. Rose,*of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Woolcoch.*

For the executor there was a brief by *LaBoule & Hunt,*and oral argument by *F. S. Hunt.*

For *Fannie Loeb*there was a brief by *Granger & Granger,*and oral argument by *S. W. Granger.*

For the widow, *Katie Kohn,*there was a brief by *G. W. Sazelton,*guardian *ad litem.*

Bardeen, J.

To properly dispose of tbe questions raised in appellant’s brief and argued at tbe bar, it would be necessary to make an examination of tbe evidence in tbe case. Tbe bill of exceptions contains no exceptions to tbe findings of tbe circuit judge. Tbe situation presented is exactly similar to that of tbe case of *Newton v. Williams,*94 Wis. 222. It would seem hardly necessary to reassert tbe rule that this court cannot review the evidence in a case tried by tbe court unless exceptions are taken to tbe findings of fact and are preserved in tbe bill of exceptions. R. S. 1818, sec. 2810; *Cramer v. Hanaford,*53 Wis. 85; *Evenson v. Bates,*58 Wis. 24; *McLennan v. Prentice,*85 Wis. 427; *Henrizi v. Kehr, 90*Wis. 344. An inspection, however, of tbe evidence returned convinces us tbe judgment was manifestly correct and ought not to be disturbed.

*By the*Court.— Tbe judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         649,570
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,422,719
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (36,588)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,590,413
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,686,700
<PP&E>                                       6,969,811
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,590,492)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,458,036
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,536,310
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       201,980
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,719,746
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,458,036
<SALES>                                      1,735,046
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,741,732
<CGS>                                        1,204,184
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  952,885
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,173
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (429,510)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (429,510)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (429,510)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)
        

</TABLE>
~ -l 

, ~~-FORMN0.8& e REF ID= A63843 ~. -· .. . . - ·. • • '1- . . 

.. ; .~~'.-~~:Office Memorandum . uNITEn sTATEs GOVERNMENT . '' .,. .. ' ~ • ·::I' 

• . ~ 

. ~ 

'' . :.·PROM 

. ·' • - I 

SUBJECT: ~- q_,...:_e/--...,.. ~ ~rt-J fk.Jre...c.J-

. \ · .. v ~._._, _.;_ 

~~-:.r"-4 ,.J -~ f-t '~ ~ ~·_,, ~~ ~ .......... "~ 

~ ~ ;,;.+.:I. ~ ~ "1-1"., • r -"~:... >- ~~ 

: · -.~ ~ ~trf""lc"-.1 ~"J:. 

~ · . ·. · :· . ·(Ji- ~ """'' ,.-£.-...;J. '1 I ~ ,-e_._t -r P t .... o "- ~ .6... 1M-· - ,_.. "' 

' . . t . I ' -..IJ .0 .. - "7'". __., • • ~ fl • 1-,.. • ....,,/ :: · , ~ ~· J_ .'\A "r~ ~ .a...e--""• ./-l!A ..-U ~'-I-... lflcJ 

, ·-·~ ~~ A~ I ~ ~ ,'/ ~ 

. .:.,., .. --:. .. · .. ,:.
Texland Drilling Program-1981, Ltd.

(A Limited Partnership)

EXHIBIT 32

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 on Form 10-Q of Texland
Drilling Program-1981, LTD, (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ( the Report), We, Jerry N. Namy, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Michael E. Chapman, Chief Financial Officerhereby 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 our knowledge:



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



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



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Jerry N. Namy      
|    |  | Jerry N. Namy          
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
|    |  | August 13, 2008        
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Michael E. Chapman 
|    |  | Michael E. Chapman     
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
|    |  | August 13, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 53 (Thursday, March 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14369-14370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06205]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign 
Utility Company Status

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Beckjord Storage, LLC  EG15-11-000
Samchully Power & Utilities 1 LLC  EG15-12-000
Chief Conemaugh Power, LLC.......  EG15-15-000
Chief Keystone Power, LLC........  EG15-16-000
Kay Wind, LLC....................  EG15-17-000
Spinning Spur Wind Three, LLC....  EG15-18-000
Green Pastures Wind, II, Inc.....  EG15-19-000
Briscoe Wind Farm, LLC...........  EG15-20-000
Sierra Solar Greenworks LLC......  EG15-21-000
Rising Tree Wind Farm III LLC....  EG15-22-000
NiGen, LLC.......................  EG15-23-000
Stephens Ranch Wind Energy II,     EG15-24-000
 LLC.
Milo Wind Project, LLC...........  EG15-25-000
Roosevelt Wind Project, LLC......  EG15-26-000
KMC Thermo, LLC..................  EG15-27-000
Verso Bucksport Power LLC........  EG15-31-000
Verso Bucksport LLC..............  EG15-32-000
Alterna Springerville LLC........  EG15-33-000
LDVF1 TEP LLC....................  EG15-34-000
Los Vientos Windpower III, LLC...  EG15-35-000

[[Page 14370]]

 
Enbridge Massif du Sud Wind        FC15-2-000
 Project GP Inc.
Enbridge Saint Robert Bellarmin    FC15-3-000
 Wind Project GP I.
FuelCell Energy, Ltd.............  FC15-4-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the months of January and February 2015, 
the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale 
Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation 
of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

    Dated: March 12, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06205 Filed 3-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent
,

v.

JIMMY KELLY CONTRERAS , Petitioner

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 21

- 0 4 77 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2 00 4

- 125536

- 002 The Honorable Margaret R. Mahoney
, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Amanda M. Parker Counsel for Respondent
Jimmy Kelly Contreras, Florence Petitioner FILED 2-15-2022STATE v. CONTRERAS Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz , Judge Samuel A. Thumma, and Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM :
¶1 Petitioner Jimmy Kelly Contreras seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief

. This is petitioner’s third successive petition.
¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete
, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).
¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitione r has not established an abuse of discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 24.4

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY



     KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes
and appoints each of Wade H. Nichols III, Robert K. Kretzman, Lawrence E.
Kreider and Joram C. Salig or any of them, each acting alone, his true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and
his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the
REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION (the "Corporation") Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 (the "Form 10-K") under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of
the Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of the
Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract,
document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments
thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents
in connection therewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and any applicable securities exchange or securities
self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each
acting alone, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and
thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying
and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone,
or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents this 2nd day
of March, 1998.


                                                     /s/ HOWARD GITTIS
                                                     ------------------------
                                                     HOWARD GITTIS
----" --~" r":- --""\i

"" 1-

October 11, 2013

Bob Bevilacqua

Town Supervisor

Town ofHarrietstown

39 Main Street

Saranac Lake, NY 12983

Re: Adirondack Essential Air Service

Dear Supervisor Bevilacqua,

On behalf of the Board of Directors for the Adirondack North Country Association (ANCA), an

independent not-for-profit organization working to strengthen key sectors of the economy in the

Adirondack North Country, we write to request that DOT explicitly solicit in the forthcoming EAS RFP a

summer-season increase in capacity in accord with our summer influx of passengers. This is especially

important as the February 2014 expiration of our current EAS contract approaches. We appeal to DOT to

carefully consider the increased ridership at our regional airport. We want to point out that since 2008,

passenger enplanements into and out of the Lake Clear airport have increased by 45%. There is clearly

demand for this service.

Since 2010 our incumbent airline, Cape Air, has been operating increased flights in summer on their Boston

- Saranac Lake route. We request that this summer-seasonal increase in frequency be codified in the RFP's

frequency specification. Frequency and schedule convenience is key to the success of our airport and local

economy. At the same time, we are most eager to connect our airport with the N ew York metropolitan

area, in addition to the thriving hub connectivity we have at Boston. We do not want to divert to New York

one of our just three daily authorized frequencies (leaving only two flights to the hub at Boston) as that

would undermine the critical mass of frequencies necessary for a vibrant connection with the national air

transportation system. An RFP soliciting four daily flights in summer would allow an airline like Cape Air

to retain critical mass of frequency to the Boston hub (at least 3 daily non-stop flights) and using a 4th EAS

frequency add Incremental service to the New York City market, which is our primary source market for

visitors. We note with admiration the success of Cape Air's Lebanon - New York City service in the EAS

program, and understand that Cape Air is eager to add flights between Saranac Lake and New York City

under the auspices of the EAS program.

Incorporated in 1955, ANCA has a long history of leadership in the ongoing effort to strengthen the

economy of the 14 county Adirondack North Country region. From the outset, our goal has been to build

stronger and more self-reliant communities and to improve quality of life. www.adirondack.org. Increasing

visitor access to this region has and continues to be a strong ANCA priority.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

f.

t:« h

Kate Fish

Executive Director

The Adirondack North Country Association OtNCA) is an independent not-for-profit organization working to

strengthen key sectors of the economy in the Adirondack North Country.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Robert P. Pinkas, Chief Executive Officer of Brantley Capital Corporation,certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Brantley CapitalCorporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Dated this 29th day of April, 2004.
By: /s/ ROBERT P. PINKAS
Robert P. Pinkas
March 28, 2013



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KATHERINE MARCUM , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00198

- CV V.

DOW CORNING CORPORAT ION AND
DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION , Appellee s

________________________________ Today th e Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the order signed by the court below on January 29, 2013. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason o f this appeal be paid by appellant, Katherine Marcum. We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Shelter
Properties III Limited Partnership 1997 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000353282
<NAME> SHELTER PROPERTIES III LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,512
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       38
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          25,764
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,988
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          8,319
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,909
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,193
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,737
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 572
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       456
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     8.21<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 9067 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Summit Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shirley W. Nelson, CEO 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:

|                        | 1. | To the best of my knowledge, the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                           
|----------------------- | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |    |                                                                                                                                                                              
|                        | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and operating results of the
Company.
|                        |    |                                                                                                                                                                              
|Date: November 11, 2002
|                        |    |                                                                                                                                                                              
|                        |    |                                                                                                                                                                              
|                        |    |                                                                                                                                                                              

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.