alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Masazumi INOUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; The Bank of New York Mellon, FKA The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Alternative Loan Trust 2005-17; Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-17, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16699

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 19, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed June 21, 2017

Mark W. Lapham, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Mark W. Lapham, Danville, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Elizabeth Holt Andrews,. Esquire, Jan T. Chilton, Attorney, Severson *&*Werson APC, One Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Bank of America, N.A., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., The Bank of New York Mellon

Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esquire, Sev-erson *&*Werson APC, One Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Mortgage Pass-through Certificates

Before: SCHROEDER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and McCALLA,** District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision, without oral argument. *See*Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Jon P. McCalla, United States District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Plaintiff-Appellant Masazumi Inoue (“Inoue”) claims that Defendants-Appel-lees lacked legal authority to foreclose on his property because of recording defects. Inoue raised substantially similar claims in a California state court action that was ultimately dismissed with final judgment entered against Inoue. The district court concluded that Inoue’s claims, having already been litigated in state court, were barred by res judicata and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. We have *819jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Under California law, res judicata applies if (1) the second lawsuit involves the same “cause of action” as the first, (2) the first lawsuit resulted in a final judgment on the merits, and (3) the party to be precluded was a party, or in privity with a party, to the first lawsuit. *San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Employees’ Ret. Sys.,*568 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, the three elements are clearly met.

Inoue does not argue on appeal that these elements are not met. Inoue appears to argue that res judicata does not apply because his claims in this action contain allegations that the defendants engaged in fraud related to the loan securitization process. There is no res judicata exception for such allegations of fraud. *See Eichman v. Fotomat Corp.,*147 Cal.App.3d 1170, 197 Cal.Rptr. 612, 614-15 (1983). An opposing party can escape res judicata only on the basis of extrinsic fraud, i.e„ fraud that “deprived the opposing party of the opportunity to appear and present his case” in the earlier judgment. *Id.*Inoue has neither argued nor provided any support for such extrinsic fraud.

We agree with the district court that Inoue’s suit is barred by res judicata.

AFFIRMED.

***

 disposition 1⁄8 not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Joseph GRIFFITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-7139

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 11, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

*822Joseph Griffith, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John Catizone, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Griffith appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Griffith’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Griffith has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Moreover, the district court correctly concluded 'that Griffith’s challenge was not properly brought in a § 2241 petition. *See In re Jones,*226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we grant Griffith’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
# L_2005322EN.01003802.xml

| 9.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 322/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/38

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 of 14 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 341 of 22 December 2001
  )

On page 48, in Annex I.E, seventh column ‘six-monthly’, with regard to CN code 0406 90 78:

for:

‘
  3 375
  ’,

read:

‘
  3 250
  ’.

---
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6438 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 7, 2016 

Received 

AN ACT 

To extend the waiver of limitations with respect to excluding 

from gross income amounts received by wrongfully incarcerated individuals. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


SSpencer on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6438 RDS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF WAIVER OF LIMITATIONS WITH 

2 RESPECT TO EXCLUDING FROM GROSS IN3 COME AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY WRONGFULLY 

4 INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 304(d) of the Protecting 

6 Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 is amended by 

7 striking ‘‘1-year’’ and inserting ‘‘2-year’’. 

8 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 304(d) of 

9 such Act is amended by striking ‘‘application of this Act’’ 

10 and inserting ‘‘application of this section’’. 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall take effect as if included in section 304 

13 of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 6, 

2016. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


SSpencer on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of D. Humes McLaughlin et al., as Executors of Thomas J. McLaughlin, Deceased, Respondents. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States et al., Appellants. Martha W. McLaughlin, as Executrix of Charles R. McLaughlin, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 1, 1943;

decided March 11, 1943.

Motion for reargument by Equitable Life Assurance Society denied with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 289 N. Y. 738.)
Exhibit 13.1



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 AudioCodes Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shabtai Adlersberg, Chief Executive 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/ SHABTAI ADLERSBERG



Shabtai Adlersberg

Chief Executive Officer





June 30, 2004





| |  | 
| |  |
#### Abraham v. Davenport.

1. Exemptions: office furniture of lawyer: landlord’s attachment. The office furniture of a practicing lawyer is to be regarded as included in the terms “ tools and instruments,” as used in § 3072 of the Code, which exempts such tools and instruments from execution; and *held*that such furniture could not be subjected to a landlord’s attachment.

*Ajofecd from, MahasJm District Court.*

Monday, October 24.

Action to enforce a landlord’s lien. A writ for a land*112lord’s attachment was issued, and was levied upon the defendant's office furniture. The defendant moved to discharge the attachment, on the ground that the property attached was exempt from execution. The court overruled the motion, and from the order the defendant appeals.

*John 0.*Malcolm, for appellant.

*Gleason c& Haskell,*for appellee.

Adams, Oh. X

'The defendant showed, in support of his .motion, that he is the head of a family, and is an attorney at law, and engaged in the practice; that the property was in use by him as such attorney, and necessary to enable him to carry on his law business, and was purchased before the debt sued on was contracted.

Under section 3072 of the Code, the proper tools, instruments and books of a lawyer, if the head of a family, are exempt from execution. The question presented is as to whether the ordinary office furniture of a lawyer necessary to enable him to carry on his business can, within the meaning of the statute, be deemed his instruments. We observe, for instance, that one of the articles attached is the defendant’s office table. Strictly speakiug, perhaps a table is not an instrument. Its general use is such that the word “ instrument” seems inapplicable. But it should be borne in mind that a lawyer’s table is used specifically in his employment; it is one of the things which he employs as a means in the accomplishment of his work. The fact that a table, in its general use, is not an instrument, is not important. It appears quite different when it is adopted specifically as a means in an employment. It then fulfills all the essential ideas of an instrument, and that unquestionably is the important consideration. It is the policy of the law that every man who is the head of a family shall be allowed, as far as possible, to follow his chosen vocation. It is better ordinarily, we presume, even for the creditor, that the debtor should *113not be deprived of the instruments of his vocation, and so turned aside to something for which he is unprepared, and which consequently would be less remunerative. It is true that not everything with which the head of a family earns his living is exempt to him. Machinery is not exempt. It is proper that the exemption should be more limited. The creditor’s rights must be considered as well as the debtor’s. But the value to a lawyer of the ordinary office furniture which he uses in doing his work is so much greater than it can be to his creditors, that we think it comes within the spirit of the exemption statute, and that the court erred in. not sustaining the defendant’s -motion for a discharge of the attachment. Reversed.
# EUR-Lex - 32001R0647 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R0647

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 647/2001 of 30 March 2001 fixing, for the 2000/01 marketing year, the amounts to be paid to producer organisations and associations thereof recognised under Regulation No 136/66/EEC **

*
Official Journal L 091 , 31/03/2001 P. 0044 - 0044 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 647/2001

of 30 March 2001

fixing, for the 2000/01 marketing year, the amounts to be paid to producer organisations and associations thereof recognised under Regulation No 136/66/EEC

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000(2), and in particular Article 20d(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 20d(1) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC provides for a percentage of production aid to be withheld to help finance the work of recognised producer organisations and associations thereof. For the 1998/99, 1999/2000 and 2000/01 marketing years, the amount of production aid referred to in Article 20d(1) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC is 0,8 %.

(2) Article 21(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2366/98 of 30 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of production aid for olive oil for the 1998/99, 1999/2000 and 2000/01 marketing years(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1273/1999(4), provides that the unit amounts to be paid to producer organisations and associations thereof are to be fixed on the basis of forecasts of the overall sum to be distributed. The funds that will become available in each Member State as a result of the amount withheld as referred to above must be suitably distributed among those eligible.

(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the Management Committee for Oils and Fats,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

>TABLE>

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 March 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ 172, 30.9.1966, p. 3025/66

(2) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000, p. 2.

(3) OJ L 293, 31.10.1998, p. 50.

(4) OJ L 151, 18.6.1999, p. 12.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7088 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7088

  To require the Secretary of the Air Force to establish a permanent 
 program to provide tuition assistance to members of the Air National 
                                 Guard.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2024

      Mr. Jackson of North Carolina (for himself and Mr. Kelly of 
 Mississippi) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of the Air Force to establish a permanent 
 program to provide tuition assistance to members of the Air National 
                                 Guard.

    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 ``Air Guard Standardizing Tuition 
Assistance To Unify the Services Act of 2024'' or the ``Air Guard 
STATUS Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. PROVISION OF TUITION ASSISTANCE TO MEMBERS OF AIR NATIONAL 
              GUARD.

    The Secretary of the Air Force shall establish a permanent program 
to pay, under section 2007 of title 10, United States Code, all or a 
portion of the charges of an educational institution for the tuition or 
expenses of a member of the Air National Guard who is in compliance 
with the training requirements under regulations prescribed under 
section 502(a) of title 32, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
Dated:  3/29/2007                                                                            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:By: /s/  Lloyd A. Brown                                                                  Title:Vice PresidentAsset Backed Securities CorporationI, Lloyd A. Brown, certify that:1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust, Series AMQ 2006-HE7 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 report;3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.  Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.Lloyd A. Brown**Exhibit 31 : Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications**Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as ServicerU.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee and Custodian
Connecticut Department of

ENERGY &

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

Hearing Officer Delegation

In accordance with the provisions of section 22a-2 of the Connecticut General Statutes, I hereby

appoint Michael Geigert of the Bureau of Air Management as a hearing officer with the authority

to oversee the public review process and conduct a public hearing on April 5, 2012, should such

a hearing be requested. The public review process will address a revision to the State

Implementation Plan for air quality, specifically a request to EPA to redesignate portions of

Connecticut from nonattainment to attainment with respect to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour

PMa.s National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Michael Geigert is also authorized to render a

recommended decision concerning the proposed redesignation request.

Date

Deputy Commissioner
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6988 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the enforcement of 

certain court ordered property distributions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2024 

Mr. D’ESPOSITO (for himself, Mr. COSTA, Mr. CARSON, Mr. SWALWELL, Mr. 

GRIJALVA, Mr. LAWLER, and Ms. SA ́NCHEZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the 

enforcement of certain court ordered property distributions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as ‘‘Jane’s Law’’. 

5 SEC. 2. SPOUSAL OBLIGATIONS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 11A of title 18, United 

7 States Code, is amended— 

8 (1) in the chapter heading by inserting ‘‘AND 

9 SPOUSAL OBLIGATION’’ after ‘‘CHILD 

10 SUPPORT’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6988 IH

1 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘§ 228A. Failure to pay legal spousal court-ordered 

3 property distribution 

4 ‘‘(a) OFFENSE.—Whoever knowingly, travels in inter5 state or foreign commerce, with the intent to evade compli6 ance with a court ordered property distribution shall be 

7 imprisoned for not more than two years, fined under this 

8 title, or both. 

9 ‘‘(b) MANDATORY RESTITUTION.—Upon a conviction 

10 under this section, the court shall order restitution under 

11 section 3663A in an amount equal to the total unpaid 

12 amount under the court ordered property distribution. 

13 ‘‘(c) DEFINITION.—The term ‘court ordered property 

14 distribution’ means an amount of more than $5,000 deter15 mined under a court order pursuant to the law of a State 

16 or of an Indian tribe to be due to a spouse or former 

17 spouse as an equitable or other distribution of assets in 

18 connection with a separation or divorce.’’. 

19 (b) TABLE OF SECTIONS AMENDMENT.—The table of 

20 sections at the beginning of chapter 11A of title 18, 

21 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

22 following: 

‘‘228A. Failure to pay legal spousal court ordered property distribution.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Robert D. Emmerich, Appellant, *v.*Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company, Respondent. (Consolidated Appeals.)

Submitted May 27,1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*573
      *Isidor Enselman*and *Howard Hilton Spellman*for appellant.

*Francis S. Bensel, Alexander M. Lewis*and *W. Frederick Knecht*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on authority of *Elkind*v. *Chase National Bank*(259 App. Div. 661, affd. 284 N. Y. 726) and *Hendry*v. *Title Guarantee & Trust Co.*(255 App. Div. 497, affd. 280 N. Y. 740). No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Lotjghkan, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thachek, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6932 

To amend the National Dam Safety Program Act to require the inclusion 

of low-head dams in the national dam inventory, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2024 

Mr. EDWARDS (for himself and Mr. RYAN) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the National Dam Safety Program Act to require 

the inclusion of low-head dams in the national dam inventory, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Low-Head Dam Inven5 tory Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NATIONAL DAM INVENTORY. 

7 The National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 

8 467d) is amended— 

9 (1) in section 6— 

2 

•HR 6932 IH

1 (A) in the first sentence, by inserting ‘‘and 

2 low-head dams (as defined in section 15(a))’’ 

3 before ‘‘in the United States’’; and 

4 (B) in the second sentence— 

5 (i) by inserting ‘‘and low-head dams’’ 

6 after ‘‘Such inventory of dams’’; 

7 (ii) by inserting ‘‘and low-head dam’’ 

8 after ‘‘each dam’’; and 

9 (iii) by striking ‘‘or a State dam safe10 ty agency’’ and inserting ‘‘, a State dam 

11 safety agency, or another relevant entity’’; 

12 and 

13 (2) in section 15(b)(2)— 

14 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking 

15 ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

16 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the 

17 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

18 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘(C) incorporate the data collected on low20 head dams into the National Dam Inventory de21 scribed in section 6.’’. 

Æ
#### Joseph Martell, Respondent, *v.*Harlou, Inc., Appellant.

Submitted February 26, 1943;

decided April 8, 1943.

*706
      *William L. Shumate*for appellant.

*Morris Cizner*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Dissenting: Lehman, Ch. J.