alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 795

For the relief of Pandelis Perdikis.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 1 (legislative day, MAY 11), 1995

Mr. COHEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Pandelis Perdikis.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for pur5 poses of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

6 1101 et seq.), Pandelis Perdikis shall be held and consid7 ered to have been lawfully admitted to the United States

8 for permanent residence as of the date of the enactment

9 of this Act upon payment of the required visa fee.

10 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

11 Upon the granting of permanent residence to

12 Pandelis Perdikis as provided in this Act, the Secretary
2

•S 795 IS

1 of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by one

2 number during the current fiscal year the total number

3 of immigrant visas available to natives of the country of

4 the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration

5 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).

Æ
#### Derrick ROGERS, a.k.a. Deonte Benson, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-10219 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(October 13, 2017)

W. Matthew Dodge, Nicole Kaplan, Stephanie A. Kearns, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Petitioner-Appellant

Dahil Dueño Goss, John Andrew Horn, Erin Sanders, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, George Jeffrey Viscomi, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Rogers appeals the denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Rogers, whose sentence for possession of a firearm as a felon was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), sought relief on the ground that his prior conviction in a Georgia court for robbery by intimidation did not qualify as a violent felony in the wake of *Johnson v. United States,*576 U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). But Rogers does not challenge the finding that his robbery conviction qualified as a violent felony. And Rogers concedes, as he did in the district court, that he has a prior conviction for aggravated battery that qualifies as a violent felony under the elements clause, which “with his two serious drug predicates” makes him “an armed career criminal.” Because Rogers is not entitled to relief from his sentence, we affirm the denial of his motion to vacate.

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Ralph W. Dox, as Committee of the Person and Estate of Walter R. McGuinness, an Incompetent Person, Appellant. Buffalo State Hospital et al., Appellants. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Respondent.

Argued January 6, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

*118
      *John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (James A. Noonan*of counsel) and *Ralph W. Dox,*in person, *for*appellants.

*Roy P. Ohlin*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

By statute, the custody of the person and the control and management of the property and affairs of an incompetent person and the use and disposition of his property are exclusively vested in the Supreme Court whose jurisdiction *must he exercised*by means of a committee appointed according to procedure provided in the Civil Practice Act (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 1356-1358). There may be no interference with or disposition of his property until such jurisdiction is exercised and a committee appointed whose proceedings are subject continuously to proper and orderly supervision of the court *(Matter of Schneider,*234 App. Div. 722; *Matter of Rinn,*242*119App. Div. 523; *Finch*v. *Goldstein,*245 N. Y. 300; *Matter of Frank,*283 N. Y. 106). The order of Special Term authorizing a committee to designate the Superintendent of Buffalo State Hospital to receive the property of the incompetent and for the discharge of the committee and his bond from liability upon making such designation was without authority of law.

The order should be affirmed, without costs.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.
#### IN RE: Michael S. GORBEY, a/k/a Michael S. Owlfeather-Gorbey, Petitioner.

No. 17-1029

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 5, 2017

Michael S. Gorbey, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael S. Gorbey petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions for reconsideration. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s dockets reveals that the district court entered orders on January 3, 2017, denying the three motions identified in Gorbey’s petition. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Gor-bey’s motions, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeal of

-- Robinson Cruise Planners Limited Under Contract No. N00189-07-C-Zl22 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60452

Edward J. Kinberg, Esq.

Widerman Malek, PL Melbourne, FL E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Gregory T. Allen, Esq.

Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Chantilly, VA ORDEROF DISMISSAL The appeal has been withdrawn because appellant's bankruptcy has concluded and, according to the parties, the debt owedto the governmentwas discharged in the bankruptcy proceeding. Accordingly, pursuant to appellant's unopposed motion for dismissal, this appeal is dismissed from the Board's docket with prejudice. Dated: I May 2018
TERRENCE S. HARTMAN Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60452, Appeal ofRobinson Cruise Planners Limited, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
**Annual
      Statement of Compliance**


**Bear
      Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2006-SL4**





VIA:
      EMAIL





Bear
      Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC


383
      Madison Avenue


New
      York,
      New York 10179


regabnotifications@bear.com





EMC
      Mortgage Corporation


2780
      Lake
      Vista Drive


Lewisville,
      Texas 75067




Re:  The
      Pooling and Servicing agreement dated as of October 1, 2006 (the “Agreement”),
      among Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, as Depositor and Purchaser,
      EMC Mortgage Corporation, as Seller and Master Servicer, and LaSalle Bank
      National Association, as Trustee.







I,
      Barbara L. Marik, a First Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association,
      as Trustee hereby certify that:





(1)
      A
      review of the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year
      and
      of the performance of the Trustee under the Agreement has been made under my
      supervision; and





(2)
      To
      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all
      its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such
      year or a portion thereof.







Date: February
      1, 2007





LaSalle
      Bank National Association, as Trustee




/s/
      Barbara L Marik


Barbara
      L. Marik


First
      Vice President
Exhibit
10.1



CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-188107) of Gazit Globe Ltd. and in the
related Prospectus of our reports dated March 26, 2017, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Gazit Globe Ltd. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Gazit Globe Ltd. and
subsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2016.



|                     | /s/ Kost
    Forer Gabby & Kasierer 
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------
|Tel-Aviv,
    Israel | KOST
    FORER GABBAY & KASIERER    
|April
    27, 2017   | A
    Member of Ernst & Young Global
Appendix C.5

VISTAS Emission Inventory 

Supporting Documentation
Appendix C.5 - 1
Appendix C.5 - 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Development of the VISTAS Draft 2002 Mobile Source Emission Inventory

(February 2004 version), Pechan .....................................................................................................3

Documentation of the Base G 2002 Base Year, 2009 and 2018 Emissions Inventory for

VISTAS, MACTEC, Inc................................................................................................................62

Memorandum to VISTAS State Point Contacts and VISTAS EGU Special Interest Workgroup,

from Gregory Stella, June 13, 2005.............................................................................................318
#### Hazael Tinkham *versus*Timothy Smith.

A special demurrer to an amended declaration on the ground of defects of form may be filed at the term of the Common Pleas when die amendment is made, that being the “ first term ” in respect to such amended declaration.

It is too late to file such demurrer at the next term after the amendment is made.

This was an action on the case to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the defendant’s revoking a submission to arbitration.

The action was originally entered at the April term 1826, of the Court of Common Pleas, and was continued to the August term. At that term the defendant filed a special demurrer to the declaration, assigning for cause a misjoinder of counts, and the plaintiff, by leave of court, amended the declaration by striking out the first count. At the November term 1826, the defendant offered a demurrer to the declaration in its amended form, assigning various special causes. This demurrer was rejected by the Court, and the defendant thereupon filed his plea, to which the plaintiff demurred specially, and the defendant joined in demurrer. At the November term 1827, *Williams*J. of C. C. P. ruled that the plea was insufficient, and gave judgment for the plaintiff.

To these proceedings the defendant filed his exceptions.

Eddy, for the defendant,

admitted that the plea was bad, and that on general demurrer the amended declaration was sufficient ; but he said that the special demurrer to the amended declaration was rejected because it was filed too late, and this decision, he contended, was erroneous.

*Wood,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The leave to amend was granted, and the amendment was made at the August term. That was the first *34term, then, as it respects the amendment, and the defendant had a right to file then his special demurrer. But he did not offer it until the following term, when it was rejected by the court, as coming too late. We think the decision was right. As the plea is acknowledged to be bad, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment.

*Judgment of C. C. P. affirmed.*
Annex
No. 1 forming the inseparable part of the


Invention
Transfer Agreement


A





The
Invention Transfer Agreement dated 26 October 2007 (hereinafter: Agreement),
entered into by and between BURESCH Ottó (residential
address: 2040 Budaörs, Ébner György köz 2/1., mother’s name: ERTL
Etelka)


(hereinafter
jointly: Inventor),
on the one hand,


and VIDATECH
Technológiai Kutató, Fejlesztő és SzolgáltatóKorlátolt
Felelősségű Társaság (head office: 1095 Budapest, Soroksári út 94-96.;
company registration No.: 01-09-870107, recorded at the [Budapest] Metropolitan
Court as Court of Registration, represented by: KUN Dániel Jr., Managing
Director; hereinafter: Legal
Successor), on the other hand.








Invention:


1.
            Method
      and apparatus for the “Homogenous mixing of oil and gas with
      water”





Transfer
fee:


gross HUF
1,750,000.-, say One million seven hundred and fifty thousand Forints payable in
five monthly payments.








Budapest,
16 January 2007








/s/ Buresch Otto
            
            /s/ Kun Daniel, Jr.BURESCH
      Ottó,
            
            Legal
      Successor, the representative thereofInventor/s/ Viktor Rozsnyayon
      behalf ofPower
      of the Dream Ventures, Inc.
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Buckeye Ventures, Inc.(the Corporation) on Form 10QSB
for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alan Mintz, Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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 Corporation.

|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Alan Mintz
Alan Mintz
Chief Executive Officer
August 21, 2006
D. G., a child

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 2023

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 13, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Charles W. Dodson , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief of Criminal

Appeals, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LE WIS, WETHERELL, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from financial
statements for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
as reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997  
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997  
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997  
<CASH>                                           1,993  
<SECURITIES>                                         0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                   (8,480)
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,744) 
<INVENTORY>                                      1,249  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,699  
<PP&E>                                           4,179  
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,194  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,817  
<BONDS>                                              0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0  
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                             7  
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,115  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,194  
<SALES>                                          2,669  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,511  
<CGS>                                            1,483  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,292  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,215  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (4)  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,976) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,976)  
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0  
<CHANGES>                                            0  
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,976)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.39)  
        

</TABLE>
#### Josiah B. French versus Ebenezer Hanchett.

Where there are several issues joined and the finding of one or more of them ia decisive of the cause and renders the other issues immaterial, the jury may be discharged from finding any verdict upon these other issues, whether the parties consent or not.

*Oct. 21st.*

This was a suit for slander and malicious prosecution, in which there were eight counts, charging distinct offences, to all which the general issue was pleaded, and to several of which there were several pleas in bar, upon which issues were joined.

A verdict had been found for the plaintiff upon four of the counts, and for the defendant, upon several of the pleas in bar, and a motion was made to set aside the verdict for the plaintiff and grant a new trial, principally as being against the weight of evidence, and a new trial was granted upon that ground.

It appeared by the record, that several of the issues j'oined had not been found by the jury, and it was stated that a question had arisen at the trial, whether a verdict in which the issues are not all found, so taken without the consent of the parties, would be imperfect, and whether a judgment thereon would be erroneous.

Although no objection had been made to this verdict, in the argument, yet the chief justice, in delivering the opinion’ of the Court, alluded to it,, as an important point of practice, and stated, that it was now understood to be the practice of the Court, that where the position of the cause is such, that the finding of one or more of the issues, is decisive of the cause, and renders the other issues immaterial, the jury may be discharged from finding' any verdict upon them, whether the parties consent or not. In many cases the verdict upon one issue, would seem to render a verdict upon some other issue repugnant. Suppose to debt on bond there be pleaded *non est factum*and a release, if the jury find for the defendant, that it is not his deed, it would seem to be repugnant for the jury to find, that the debt, either was or was not released, as the finding either way would presuppose the previous exist *17ence of the debt, which is negatived by the finding on the first issue.

*Hoar*and *Robinson,*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph Locke*and *H. H. Fuller,*for the defendant.

A recent case in the House of Lords was referred to, showing that such is the practice in England. *Powell*v. *Son-nett,*1 Bligh’s New Rep. 545. See also *Jones*v. *Kennedy,*11 Pick. 125.1

1

 See *Sutton*v. *Dana,*1 Metc. 383.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the march
31, 1999 financial statments of SmartServ Online, Inc. and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                             152,455
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                       59,470
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                         59,986
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   271,911
<PP&E>                           1,148,507
<DEPRECIATION>                     520,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   1,675,625
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            5,636,762
<BONDS>                              7,828
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                            11,998
<OTHER-SE>                      (3,980,963)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     1,675,625
<SALES>                          1,028,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 1,028,353
<CGS>                              602,518
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      735,123
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 2,832,021
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               2,231,343
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (4,766,362)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (4,766,362)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                    (4,766,362)
<EPS-BASIC>                        (4.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (4.45)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7819

RAYMOND E. WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN BIDWELL; P. J. STEVENS; MS. GREENE;

CAPTAIN TYNDALL; LIEUTENANT LEWIS; LIEUTENANT

TEMPLE; TILLEY, DHO; LIEUTENANT SLAYTON; ODOM,

Correctional Officer; RIFENBERY, Correctional

Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TAYLOR; COUNSELOR STEINQUIST; COUNSELOR GREENE; M. J. BRIGHT;

CARTER, Correctional Officer; ROBINSON, Correctional Officer; ALVERADO, Correctional

Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. M. J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-96-

1187-MJG, CA-96-2025-MJG, CA-96-2075-MJG, CA-96-2076-MJG, CA-96-

2304-MJG, CA-96-2494-MJG)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: March 4, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond E. Washington, Appellant Pro Se.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

civil actions under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West Supp. 1996), for

making false allegations of poverty. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Washington v. Bidwell, Nos. CA-96-1187-MJG; CA-96-2025-MJG; CA-96-

2075-MJG; CA-96-2076-MJG; CA-96-2304-MJG; CA-96-2494-MJG (D. Md.

Nov. 7, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED