alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(17 Misc. Rep. 296)

#### UHLFELDER et al. v. TAMSEN.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

June 30, 1896.)

Parties—Intervention.

Code Civ. Proc. § 452, providing that the court must direct the bringing in of any party interested in the subject of the action, is mandatory.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Simon Uhlfelder and another against Edward J. H. Tamsen, as sheriff. From so much of an order granting a motion by Daniel Lenobiel and Jacob Cohen for leave to intervene as parties defendant as requires them to furnish security fo. costs, said Lenobiel and Cohen appeal.. Reversed.

Argued before VAN WYCK, C. J., and O’DWYER, J.

Jacob Barnett, for appellants.

Burrett Stone and Arthur Furber, for respondents.

O’DWYER, J.

The part of the order appealed from should be reversed. The discretion referred to in Hart v. Kohn (City Ct. N. Y.) 33 N. Y. Supp. 272, was a determination as to whether the party had an interest. Here that question has been determined in favor of the applicant, and section 452 of the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory that, where the applicant has an interest, the court must direct him to be brought in, Rosenberg v. Salomon, 144 N. Y. 92, 38 N. E. 982.

That part of the order appealed from is reversed, with costs.
#### Bank of New York, Respondent, v Jonathan M. Hunt, et al., Defendants, and Amalfi Abstract, Inc., Nonparty Respondent-Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 39] —

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered February 8, 2011, which denied nonparty Amalfi Abstract, Inc.’s motion for leave to renew a prior motion brought by plaintiff Bank of New York (BNY) to, inter alia, hold Amalfi in default for failure to close as the successful auction bidder on defendants’ foreclosed condominium unit, direct that Amalfi’s $76,000 deposit be forfeited and the condominium unit resold at auction, and charge Amalfi with any deficiency upon resale, plus costs and disbursements in the resale, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion to renew relied upon generalized news articles reporting “robo-signing” practices by a bank that had acquired BNY’s loan servicing agent. Such non-specific news articles offered insufficient factual evidence to warrant a change of the motion court’s prior order finding that Amalfi was in default under the terms of sale and the judgment of foreclosure, directing that Amalfi forfeit its deposit and the apartment be resold at auction *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). Nor was any new information provided regarding BNY’s alleged lack of standing to commence this foreclosure action. Lack of standing is not properly raised by Amalfi and, in any event, is belied by an affidavit from its loan servicing agent stating that BNY was assigned both the note and mortgage in connection with the condominium apartment. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

NITED TATES ISTRICT OURT for the

__________ District of __________ 

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 District of Oregon

Case 3:14-cv-01407-AC Document 13 Filed 11/07/14 Page 1 of 2

VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC, a California Limited 

Liability Company, and 

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC, a Texas Limited 

Liability Company, 

3:14-cv-1407-AC

PETER PECSOK 

PETER PECSOK 

21194 SW LAWRENCE WAY 

BEAVERTON, OREGON 97006

CROWELL LAW 

CARL D. CROWELL 

943 LIBERTY STREET SE 

PO BOX 923 

SALEM, OR 97308 

11/07/2014 By: s/Sutawnee Sellers, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:14-cv-01407-AC Document 14 Filed 11/28/14 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:14-cv-01407-AC Document 14 Filed 11/28/14 Page 2 of 2
S. 1559

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

An Act

To provide for the design, construction, furnishing, and equipping of a Center

for Historically Black Heritage within Florida A&M University.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CONSTRUCTION OF A CENTER FOR REGIONAL BLACK CULTURE.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Currently 500,000 historically important artifacts of

the Civil War era and the early days of the civil rights movement in the Southeast region of the United States are housed

at Florida A&M University.

(2) To preserve this large repository of African-American

history and artifacts it is appropriate that the Federal Government share in the cost of construction of this national repository

for culture and history.

(b) DEFINITION.—In this section:

(1) CENTER.—The term ‘‘Center’’ means the Center for

Historically Black Heritage at Florida A&M University.

(2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

of the Interior acting through the Director of the National

Park Service.

(c) CONSTRUCTION OF CENTER.—The Secretary may award a

grant to the State of Florida to pay for the Federal share of

the cost, design, construction, furnishing, and equipping of the

Center at Florida A&M University.

(d) GRANT REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In order to receive a grant awarded under

subsection (c), Florida A&M University, shall submit to the

Secretary a proposal.

(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share described in subsection (c) shall be 50 percent.
S. 1559—2

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.—There is authorized

to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior to carry out

this section a total of $3,800,000 for fiscal year 1998 and any

succeeding fiscal years. Funds appropriated pursuant to the authority of the preceding sentence shall remain available until expanded.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
----

**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  November                6, 2007 | /s/                HARRY J. WHITE, JR. |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                              | Harry                J. White, Jr.     |
|                                              | Chief                Financial Officer |

----
#### William Augustus White, Respondent, *v.*George S. Wheeler, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.

This case was argued and decided with *Terrel*v. Wheeler, *ante,*page 76.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                         162,117
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,710,507
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,811,468
<PP&E>                                           3,169
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              71,655,189
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       38,426,859
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,475,629
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                71,655,189
<SALES>                                         12,004
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,004
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             730,216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,705,252)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,705,252)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,705,252)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.054)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.054)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1



                        REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


April 4, 2002

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Pelican Properties International Corp.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Pelican
Properties International Corp. and Subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December
31, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended. These consolidated
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial
statements based on our audit. The consolidated financial statements of the
Company as of and for the year ended December 31, 2000 were audited by other
auditors whose report dated February 16, 2001, expressed an unqualified opinion
on those statements. The prior auditor's report raised substantial doubt about
the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements audited by us present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Pelican Properties
International Corp. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001, and the results of
their operations and their cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming
that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the
financial statements, the Company has incurred substantial losses from
operations and has a substantial working capital deficit. The Company incurred a
loss from operations and before income taxes of $2,325,804 for 2001 and had a
working capital deficit as of December 31, 2001 of $3,544,813. These matters
raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going
concern. Management's plans concerning these matters are described in Note 1 to
the financial statements. These financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of these uncertainties.


Certified Public Accountants
Tampa, Florida
|   | 1. | The      Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |    /s/  Raymond      R. Brandstrom |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Raymond      R. Brandstrom                                  |
|   | Chief      Financial Officer                                |
|   | March      16, 2009                                         |
# C_2005270EN.01003701.xml

| 29.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/37

---

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2005/C 270/10)

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1), following which no request for a review was received, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will shortly expire.

1

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 (2) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

2

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Electronic weighing scales | People's Republic of China Republic of Korea Taiwan | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 2605/2000 (OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 42), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 692/2005 (OJ L 112, 3.5.2005, p. 1) | 1.12.2005 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Electronic weighing scales

People's Republic of China Republic of Korea Taiwan

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 2605/2000 (OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 42), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 692/2005 (OJ L 112, 3.5.2005, p. 1)

1.12.2005

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 2.3.2005, p. 2.

1

(2)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

2

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SUBRINA POUPAK SEHAT, 3:14-CV-01433-PK

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

 

PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL INSURANCE,

COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, et al.,

 Defendants.

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and

Recommendation (#179) on April 15, 2016, in which he recommends

this Court: 

(1) Grant WCSO’s Motion (#135-3) to Dismiss for

Insufficiency of Process and dismiss with prejudice

Plaintiff’s claims against Deputies O’Reilly, Wiley,

Mock, and John and Jane Does;

(2) Grant Defendant Washington County Sheriff’s

1 - ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01433-PK Document 181 Filed 05/16/16 Page 1 of 3
Department’s (WCSO) Motion (#135-1) to Dismiss and

dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against

the remaining Defendants;

(3) Deny as moot WCSO’s Motion (#135-2) to Strike;

(4) Strike all other pending Motions in this matter as moot

with leave to refile after Plaintiff files her Third

Amended Complaint; and

(5) Grant Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint

no later than 45 days after entry of an Order adopting

the Findings and Recommendation.

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its

obligation to review the record de novo. See Dawson v. Marshall,

561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). See also United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not

find any error.

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and

Recommendation (#179). Accordingly, the Court 

(1) GRANTS WCSO’s Motion (#135-3) to Dismiss for

Insufficiency of Process DISMISSES with prejudice

Plaintiff’s claims against Deputies O’Reilly, Wiley,

2 - ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01433-PK Document 181 Filed 05/16/16 Page 2 of 3
Mock, and John and Jane Does;

(2) GRANTS WSCO’s Motion (#135-1) to Dismiss and DISMISSES

without prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against the

remaining Defendants;

(3) DENIES as moot WCSO’s Motion (#135-2) to Strike;

(4) STRIKES all other pending Motions in this matter with

leave to refile after Plaintiff files her Third Amended

Complaint; and

(5) GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended

Complaint consistent with Magistrate Judge Papak's

Findings and Recommendation (#179) and this Order no

later than June 30, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 16th day of May, 2016.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

3 - ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01433-PK Document 181 Filed 05/16/16 Page 3 of 3
WILBORN LAW OFFICE, P.C. 

TIM WILBORN, Attorney at Law - OSB # 944644 

tim@wilbornlaw.com 

P.O. Box 370578 

Las Vegas, NV 89137 

Voice: ( 702) 240-0184 

Fax: (503) 926-9133 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

DEBORAH OWEN, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

COl\ll\USSIONER of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3: 14-cv-00894-CL 

-PRt3ft38~ ORDER 

Attorneys' fees in the amount of $13,634.87 are hereby awarded to Attorney Tim Wilborn 

pursuant to 42 U .S.C. § 406(b ). Previously, this court awarded fees pursuant to the Equal Access 

To Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. When issuing the§ 406(b) check, the agency is directed 

to subtract the amount of the EAJA fee previously received by the attorney and to send to Plaintiffs 

attorney, Tim Wilborn, at the address above, the balance of $13,634.87, minus any user fee. Any 

amount withheld after all administrative and court attorneys fees are paid should be released to the 

claimant. 

DA TED this _jj__ day of 

Presented by: 

s/ Tim Wilborn, OSB # 944644 

(702) 240-0184 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ORDER - Page 1 

re s"' 07 20~-_.------:;;----:e-::::---

~---

.- -· -

United States District Court or Magistrate Judge
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

GASTON, HOUTZ, and PENNIX

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Alejandro E. RAMOS

Aviation Ordnanceman Airman (E-3), U.S. Navy

Appellant

No. 202000021

Decided: 27 October 2020

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: 

Hayes C. Larsen

Sentence adjudged 26 September 2019 by a special court-martial 

convened at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, consisting of a military 

judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to 

E-1, confinement for 12 months, and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Lieutenant Commander R. Andrew Austria, JAGC, USN

For Appellee:

Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).
United States v. Ramos, NMCCA No. 202000021

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred. Uniform Code of Military Justice arts. 59, 66, 10 U.S.C. 

§§ 859, 866. 

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT
23.1


CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8  (Nos. 333-39055, 333-43934, 333-51229, 333-58522, 333-122387, and
333-156807) of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation of our reports dated September
25, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement
schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
(which expresses an adverse opinion on the Company’s internal control over
financial reporting because of material weaknesses), which appear in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.




/s/
      Burr, Pilger & Mayer LLPSan
      Jose, CaliforniaSeptember
      25, 2009
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Theundersigned, Richard J. Campo, Chairman of the Board and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Camden Summit Partnership, L.P. (the “Partnership”), and DennisM. Steen, the Senior Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer andSecretary of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Partnership for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Partnership.

 

 
|   |   | /s/Richard J. Campo                                 |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Richard J. Campo                                    |
|   |   | Chairman of the  Board of Trust Managers and        |
|   |   | Chief Executive  Officer                            |
|   |   |                                                |
|   |   |                                                |
|   |   | /s/Dennis M. Steen                                  |
|   |   | Dennis M. Steen                                     |
|   |   | Chief Financial  Officer,                           |
|   |   | Senior Vice  President – Finance and Secretary |

 

 

August 11, 2005

 

----