alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 11 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 12 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 13 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 14 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 15 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 16 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 17 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 18 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 19 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 20 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 21 of 22
Case 10-00213 Doc 1 Filed 01/05/10 Entered 01/05/10 17:07:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 22 of 22
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 1 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 2 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 3 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 4 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 5 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 6 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 7 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 8 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 9 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 10 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 11 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 12 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 13 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 14 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 15 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 16 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 17 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 18 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 19 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 20 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 21 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 22 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 23 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 24 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 25 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 26 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 27 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 28 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 29 of 30
Case 10-01045 Doc 1-1 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 10:49:26 Desc Petition 

 Page 30 of 30
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kimberly Ann KIMPSON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-50441.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.*

Filed Jan. 6, 2009.

Sharon K. McCaslin, Esquire, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James H. Locklin, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Kimberly Ann Kimpson appeals from her bench-trial conviction for disorderly conduct, in violation of 41 C.F.R. § 102-*4674.390. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Kimpson contends that her conviction should be reversed because there was insufficient evidence at trial that she had notice that her conduct was prohibited. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found that the applicable regulation was posted in a conspicuous place on the property. *See United States v. Lunstedt,*997 F.2d 665, 667-68 (9th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 176 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 176

   Expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States Postal 
  Service should issue a semipostal stamp to support medical research 
                    relating to Alzheimer's disease.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 10, 2011

Ms. Mikulski submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
      the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States Postal 
  Service should issue a semipostal stamp to support medical research 
                    relating to Alzheimer's disease.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the United States 
Postal Service should, in accordance with section 416 of title 39, 
United States Code--
            (1) issue a semipostal stamp to support medical research 
        relating to Alzheimer's disease; and
            (2) transfer to the National Institutes of Health for that 
        purpose any amounts becoming available from the sale of such 
        stamp.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 13.1
 SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
  
    
    the amended Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended November 30, 2007 of OSI
Geospatial Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
    
    the information contained in the Form 20-F/A fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of OSI Geospatial Inc.
 July 10, 2008
 /s/ Kenneth H. KirkpatrickPresident and Chief Executive Officer




---



##### 



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
  
    
    the amended Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended November 30, 2007 of OSI
Geospatial Inc..fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
    
    the information contained in the Form 20-F/A fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of OSI Geospatial Inc.
 July 10, 2008
 /s/ John T. SentjensChief Financial Officer
#### Jabari DOZIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Linda SANDERS; Leroy Cartledge; Dennis Part; Sharon Patterson; Anthony Padula; Laura Miller; Bruce Oberman; Ronald Cribb; Gloria Davis; Norberto Gordon; Clinton McConico; E. Mims, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-6397.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 21, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.

*976Jabari Dozier, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Barry Johnson, G. Murrell Smith, Jr., Lee Erter Wilson Holler & Smith, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jabari Dozier appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Dozier’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Dozier v. Sanders,*No. 3:09-cv-02309-JMC, 2011 WL 846698 (D.S.C. Mar. 9, 2011). We grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis and 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
AS OF APRIL 1, 1997, THE COMPANY CHANGED ITS FISCAL YEAR TO JANUARY 31.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                           40515
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    80739
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2250
<INVENTORY>                                     139932
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                275949
<PP&E>                                           59058
<DEPRECIATION>                                   11011
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  346440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            96212
<BONDS>                                         108415
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       57609
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    346440
<SALES>                                         142522
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                142708
<CGS>                                           124401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   142595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3298
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (703)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (741)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 38
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        38
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Joel Boyarski,the Principal Financial Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., herebycertify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theForm 10-Q of WorldGate Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period endedJune 30, 2006, which this certification accompanies, fully complies withrequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and information contained in the June 30, 2006 Form10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toWorldGate and will be retained by WorldGate and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| Dated: August 14, 2006 | /s/ JOEL BOYARSKI                             |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                   | Joel Boyarski                                 |
|                   | Chief Financial  Officer                      |
|                   | (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of The Amanda Company, Inc. a Utah corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities an Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Brian Bonar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company do each hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 (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/    Brian BonarBrian Bonar
Chief Executive Officer January 12, 2004
Exhibit 10.3


 


WAIVER


 


In
consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s
participation in the United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital
Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States
or any state or territory thereof or my employer or any of its directors,
officers, employees and agents for any changes to my compensation or benefits
that are required in order to comply with Section 111(b) of the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, as amended (“EESA”), and rules, regulations, guidance
or other requirements issued thereunder (collectively, the “EESA Restrictions”).


 


I
acknowledge that the EESA Restrictions may require modification of the
employment, compensation, bonus, incentive, severance, retention and other
benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements (including so-called “golden
parachute” agreements), whether or not in writing, that I have with my employer
or in which I participate as they relate to the period the United States holds
any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital
Purchase Program and I hereby consent to all such modifications.  I further acknowledge and agree that if my
employer notifies me in writing that I have received payments in violation of
the EESA Restrictions, I shall repay the aggregate amount of such payments to
my employer no later than fifteen business days following my receipt of such
notice.


 


This
waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or
any other jurisdiction related to the requirements imposed by the EESA
Restrictions (including without limitation, any claim for any compensation or
other payments or benefits I would otherwise receive absent the EESA
Restrictions, any challenge to the process by which the EESA Restrictions were
adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of the foregoing
on my employment relationship) and I hereby agree that I will not at any time
initiate, or cause or permit to be initiated on my behalf, any such claim
against the United States, my employer or its directors, officers, employees or
agents in or before any local, state, federal or other agency, court or body.


 


In
witness whereof, I execute this waiver on my own behalf, thereby communicating
my acceptance and acknowledgement to the provisions herein.


 


Respectfully,


	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name
  of Executive:

  
	
   

  	
  Date:
  December 29,
  2009
# C_2021452EN.01001901.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — INC and Consorzio Stabile Sis v Commission

(Case T-24/19) (1)

(State aid - Italian motorways - Prolongation of concessions for the execution of works - Services of general economic interest - Cap on toll charges - Decision not to raise any objections - Article 106(2) TFEU - Actions brought by competitors of the beneficiary - Abandonment by the Member State of the plan to grant aid - Plan not capable of being implemented as approved - Annulment not procuring any advantage to the applicants - No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 452/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: INC SpA (Turin, Italy), Consorzio Stabile Sis SCpA (Turin) (represented by: H.-G. Kamann, F. Louis and G. Tzifa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek, D. Recchia and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 2435 final of 27 April 2018 on State aid granted for the purposes of the Italian motorways investment plan (Cases SA.49335 (2017/N) and SA.49336 (2017/N)).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action brought by INC SpA and by Consorzio Stabile Sis SCpA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action brought by INC SpA and by Consorzio Stabile Sis SCpA;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by INC and by Consorzio Stabile Sis; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by INC and by Consorzio Stabile Sis;

| 3. | Orders INC and Consorzio Stabile Sis to bear half of their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders INC and Consorzio Stabile Sis to bear half of their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis Casalini, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), rendered on January 23, 1985, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5). No opinion. Concur&emdash;Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Fein, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1


          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Scott  Edwards,  Chief  Financial  Officer of Radix  Marine (the  "Company"),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB of the  Company for the
                  fiscal  quarter  ended  March 31,  2004 (the  "Report")  fully
                  complies with the  requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
                  and

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

Dated: November 22, 2004

                                    /s/ Scott Edwards
                                    -----------------------
                                    Scott Edwards
                                    Chief Financial Officer
August 16, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DAMONTE BONDS, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00688-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED. We further order 

appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision 

certified below for observance.
#### Vincent Robbins, Respondent, v Gina M. Panzarino, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[942 NYS2d 814]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Gina M. Panzarino appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered June 21, 2011, as denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant Gina M. Panzarino (hereinafter the appellant) failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *see Thoma v Ronai,*
      *107782 NY2d 736, 737 [1993]). The proof submitted by the appellant in support of her motion failed to establish, as a matter of law, that she was not negligent in the happening of the accident *(see Jahangir v Logan Bus Co., Inc.,*89 AD3d 1064, 1065 [2011]; *Bishop v Curry,*83 AD3d 1431, 1432 [2011]; *Cali v Mustafa,*68 AD3d 700, 701 [2009]; *Scibelli v Hopchick,*27 AD3d 720 [2006]; *Wallace v Dubin,*20 AD3d 412 [2005]; *Valore v McIntosh,*8 AD3d 662 [2004]; *Eastmond v Wen Po Wong,*300 AD2d 344 [2002]). The failure to make such a showing required the denial of the appellant’s motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her. Skelos, J.E, Florio, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.
#### EDNA L. FITTING, PETITIONER-PETITIONER, v. U. S. TRUCKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

September 19, 1960.

*Mr. Ernest N. Giannone*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Harry Steiner*for the respondent.

Denied.
#### THOMPSON v. CARPENTER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by David A. Thompson against Jonathan M. Carpenter and others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements.