alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of George Schuck, Respondent, v Board of Education of South Country Central School District, Town of Brookhaven, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel appellant to reinstate petitioner to his position as a school custodial worker with retroactive pay and contractual benefits and to give petitioner a termination hearing, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Vitale, J.), dated June 13,1984, which granted the relief requested.

Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs, and proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Petitioner, a custodial worker employed by respondent Board of Education of South Country Central School District, Town of Brookhaven, was discharged without a formal hearing on December 13, 1983 for unsatisfactory job performance and excessive lateness and absence from work. He subsequently commenced the instant proceeding, seeking, *inter alia,*a formal termination hearing. Special Term granted this relief, reasoning that petitioner was entitled to a formal hearing pursuant to Education Law § 2509 (4). This was error.

Section 2509 is part of article 51 of the Education Law and, as such, applies only to *city*school districts with less than 125,000 inhabitants (Education Law § 2501). Appellant is a *central*school district and, as such, it is governed by the provisions of article 37 of the Education Law, which contains no provisions regarding the granting of termination hearings to central school district employees. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to such a hearing *(Matter of Voorhis v Warwick Val. Cent. School Dist.,*92 AD2d 571). Special Term’s reliance on our recent decision in *Matter of Thompson v City of Poughkeepsie School Dist.*(99 AD2d 550) was improper because that case involved an employee of a city school district who was, by statute, entitled to a formal termination hearing.

Moreover, we are unpersuaded by petitioner’s argument (raised for the first time on this appeal) that Education Law § 2509 (4) should be read so as to apply to all school districts instead of just city school districts. Such a reading of the provision would impermissibly broaden the narrow application which the Legislature obviously intended it to have by placing it solely within article 51 of the Education Law. Moreover, the differences which exist in the various articles of the Education Law are rationally related to the furtherance of the State’s goal of providing maximum efficiency among school districts of different sizes. We therefore reject petitioner’s contention that the denial of hearings to central school district employees violates *821their equal protection rights. We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 11**

 

**CREATIVECOMPUTER APPLICATIONS, INC.**

 

**COMPUTATIONOF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE**

 
| ** **                                                    | ** ** | **Nine Months Ended**  | ** ** | **Three Months Ended** | ** ** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------|------------|------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                    | ** ** | **September 30, 2005** | ** ** | **September 30, 2004** | ** ** | **September 30, 2005** | ** ** | **September 30, 2004** | ** ** |
|                                                          |       |                   |       |                   |       |   |   |   |   |
| AVERAGE MARKET  PRICE PER SHARE                               |       | $                      | 2.30       |                   | $          | 1.44 |   | $ | 2.37 |   | $ | 1.18 |   |
|                                                          |       |                   |       |                   |       |   |   |   |   |
| NET INCOME  (LOSS)                                            |       | $                      | (1,498,654 | )                      | $          | 448,877 |   | $ | (1,073,152 | ) | $ | 312,066 |   |
|                                                          |       |                   |       |                   |       |   |   |   |   |
| Basic weighted  average number of common shares outstanding   |       | 3,401,011              |       | 3,318,900              |       | 3,465,900 |   | 3,318,900 |   |
|                                                          |       |                   |       |                   |       |   |   |   |   |
| Dilutive effect  of stock options                             |       | —                 |       | 86,537                 |       | — |   | 50,932 |   |
|                                                          |       |                   |       |                   |       |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted weighted  average number of common shares outstanding |       | 3,401,011              |       | 3,405,437              |       | 3,465,900 |   | 3,369,832 |   |
|                                                          |       |                   |       |                   |       |   |   |   |   |
| Basic  earnings (loss) per share                              |       | $                      | (.44       | )                      | $          | .14 |   | $ | (.31 | ) | $ | .09 |   |
|                                                          |       |                   |       |                   |       |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted earnings  (loss) per share                            |       | $                      | (.44       | )                      | $          | .13 |   | $ | (.31 | ) | $ | .09 |   |

 

----
# Table 1 - Detailed and or summa

2011 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households

2011 Technical Notes

2011 Technical Notes

2011 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households

2011 Technical Notes
Exhibit 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:





(1)
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-150627) pertaining to the Pioneer Southwest Energy Partners L.P. 2008 Long Term Incentive Plan, and





(2)
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-162566) of Pioneer Southwest Energy Partners L.P and PSE Finance Corporation and in the related Prospectus;





of our reports dated February 25, 2011 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Pioneer Southwest Energy Partners L.P. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Pioneer Southwest Energy Partners L.P. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Pioneer Southwest Energy Partners L.P. for the year ended December 31, 2010.








Ernst & Young LLP





Dallas, Texas


February 25, 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:12-CR-1(01)RM 

)

BRANDON A. BIRCHMEIER )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations upon a plea of guilty issued on March 14, 2012. Accordingly,

the court ADOPTS those findings and recommendations [docket # 17], ACCEPTS

defendant Brandon Birchmeier’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant guilty of

Count 1 of the Indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: April 4, 2012 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge, United States District Court
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1851 

To suspend temporarily the duty on nylon woolpacks used to package wool. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2005 

Mr. NUNES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on nylon woolpacks used 

to package wool. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NYLON WOOLPACKS USED TO PACKAGE WOOL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.06.21 Sacks and bags, of undyed 

woven fabric of nylon multifilament yarns not to exceed 

10 decitex, used for packing 

wool for transport, storage, 

or sale (provided for in subheading 6305.39.00) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 1851 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

LAMONT FOSTER, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-4572

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed October 30, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1839 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1839

  To suspend temporarily the duty on Glycine, N,N-Bis[2-hydroxy-3-(2-
propenyloxy)propyl]-, monosodium salt, reaction products with ammonium 
   hydroxide and pentafluoroiodoethane-tetrafluoroethylyene telomer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2005

  Mr. Forbes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on Glycine, N,N-Bis[2-hydroxy-3-(2-
propenyloxy)propyl]-, monosodium salt, reaction products with ammonium 
   hydroxide and pentafluoroiodoethane-tetrafluoroethylyene telomer.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON GLYCINE, N,N-BIS[2-HYDROXY-3-(2-
              PROPENYLOXY)PROPYL]-, MONOSODIUM SALT, REACTION PRODUCTS 
              WITH AMMONIUM HYDROXIDE AND PENTAFLUOROIODOETHANE-
              TETRAFLUOROETHYLYENE TELOMER.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.38.41       Glycine, N,N-      Free         No Change        No Change        On or Before 12/  ''.
                         Bis[2-hydroxy-3-                                                   31/2008
                         (2-
                         propenyloxy)propy
                         l]-, monosodium
                         salt, reaction
                         products with
                         ammonium
                         hydroxide and
                         pentafluoroiodoet
                         hane-
                         tetrafluoroethyly
                         ene telomer
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3809.92.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

RICHARD CHARLES DYE, as Personal )

Representative of the Estate of )

GLADYS M. DYE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-194

)

EIRIK TILLMAN and )

QUEST COMMUNICATIONS,1 )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case was removed to this Court from the Allen Superior Court by Defendants based

on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 2.) Citing the Complaint,

the Notice of Removal states that “Plaintiff alleges that the Decedent, GLADYS M. DYE, was a

resident of the State of Indiana” and that “Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendant EIRIK

TILLMAN is a resident of the State of Ohio.” (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 4-5.) 

Defendants’ Notice of Removal, however, is insufficient to establish the citizenship of

Gladys Dye and Eirik Tillman. This is because the “residency” of each party is meaningless for

purposes of diversity jurisdiction, as “citizenship is what matters.” Guar. Nat’l Title Co. v.

J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58-59 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that statements concerning a

party’s “residency” are not proper allegations of citizenship as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332);

see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “It is well-settled that when the parties allege residence but not

1

 In their Notice of Removal, Defendants note that Qwest Communications International, Inc., is improperly

named as Quest Communications in the Complaint. (Notice of Removal ¶ 1.)

1
citizenship, the court must dismiss the suit.” Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1998)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see generally Smoot v. Mazda Motors of Am.,

Inc., 469 F.3d 675, 677-78 (7th Cir. 2006). 

Therefore, the Court must be advised of Gladys Dye’s and Eirik Tillman’s citizenship,

rather than their residency, which “[f]or natural persons . . . is determined by one’s domicile.” 

Dausch v. Rykse, 9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993); see Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp.,

671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (“But residence may or may not demonstrate citizenship,

which depends on domicile—that is to say, the state in which a person intends to live over the

long run.”); Am.’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir.

1992) (“In federal law citizenship means domicile, not residence.”). 

Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an Amended

Notice of Removal on or before June 28, 2013, properly alleging the citizenship of Decedent

Gladys M. Dye and Defendant Eirik Tillman.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 14th day of June, 2013.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
#### EDWARDS, Respondent, v. NEW JERSEY & H. R, RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 4, 1912.)

Action by Dean G. Edwards against the New Jersey & Hudson River Railway Company. C. E. Thomall, for appellant. B. L. Rich, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on 144 App. Div. 554, 129 N. Y. Supp. 717. Order filed.

INGRAHAM, P. J., and DOWLING, J., dissent, on former dissenting opinion.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 29, 2022

NO. 03-22-00397-CV

Natin Paul, Appellant

v.

The Roy F. & Joann Cole Mitte Foundation, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the post-judgment injunction signed by the trial court on June 10, 2022. 

Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. 

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appellant shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
EX-33.6
Report on Assessment of Compliance

with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria


1. The undersigned authorized officer of LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services,
Inc. (the "Company") is responsible for assessing the Company's compliance with
the applicable servicing criteria as defined in 17 CFR Part 229 Section
1122(d)(4)(xi) and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the "Regulation AB Servicing Criteria") for
residential and commercial mortgage backed securities for which the Company
served as third-party property tax payment provider on the underlying collateral
(the "Platform"). Except as set forth in the preceding sentence, the servicing
criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d) are not applicable to the
activities the Company performed with respect to the Platform.

2. The Company used the criteria in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d) to assess
the compliance with the applicable Regulation AB Servicing Criteria.

3. Under one of the services offered by the Company, some customers may elect to
remit tax payments directly to tax agencies without having the Company remit
those property tax payments through our tax payment service. We refer to these
customers as "non-outsourced servicer customers." With respect to these
non-outsourced customers and the services the Company delivered pursuant to the
servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section 1122(d)(4)(xi), the
Company's assertion is strictly limited to its processing of tax payments
submitted through the Company's tax payment service.

4. With respect to servicing criteria set forth in 17 CFR Part 229 Section
1122(d)(4)(xii), the Company's assertion is strictly limited to its processing
of property tax penalty payments. The Company has determined that its servicer
customers may also have access to systems that enable those servicers to process
penalties through obligor escrow accounts. Management's assessment of compliance
does not relate to the actual or potential activities of other parties with
access to obligor escrow accounts.

5. Based on such assessment, management believes that, as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2007, the Company has complied in all material respects with
the Regulation AB Servicing Criteria related to the servicing of the Platform
taken as a whole.

6. The registered public accounting firm of Grant Thornton, LLP, has issued an
attestation report on the Company's assessment of compliance with the Regulation
AB Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007.

Date: February 6, 2008

LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc.

By: /s/ Robert Ige
Name: Robert Ige
Its:  Executive Vice President
#### SMITH, Respondent, v. VALENTINE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 13, 1913.)

Action by John H. Smith against Benjamin B. Valentine.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements,
# L_2008006EN.01000901.xml

| 10.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 6/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 6/9

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 18 December 2007

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund

(2008/30/EC)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (1), and in particular point 28 thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2),

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the Budgetary Conciliation of 13 July 2007,

Whereas:

| (1) | The European Union has created a European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (‘the Fund’) to provide additional support to workers who suffer from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The European Union has created a European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (‘the Fund’) to provide additional support to workers who suffer from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market.

| (2) | The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

| (4) | Germany and Finland submitted applications to mobilise the Fund, concerning two cases of redundancies in the mobile phone sector: BenQ in Germany and Perlos Oyj in Finland, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Germany and Finland submitted applications to mobilise the Fund, concerning two cases of redundancies in the mobile phone sector: BenQ in Germany and Perlos Oyj in Finland,

HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2007, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised for a total amount of EUR 14 794 688.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 18 December 2007.

For the European Parliament

The President

H.-G. PÖTTERING

For the Council

The President

M. LOBO ANTUNES

---

(1)  
  OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

2

---
[No. 39440-1-I.

Division One.

October 20, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Michael Wayne Kinniebrew, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-1-02809-2, Charles V. Johnson, J., entered September 6, 1996. *Dismissed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.