alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jason Andrew WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10710

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2011.

Susan Cowger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jason Andrew Watkins has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Wat*423kins has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Watkins’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Watkins’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *423published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### ALBANY CITY NAT. BANK v. HUDSON RIVER BRICK MANUF’G CO.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

June 18, 1894.)

Mortgages—Foreclosure—Complaint.

Where a complaint in an action to foreclose a mortgage alleges that one of the defendants has or claims some interest in the mortgaged property, it shows that such defendant is a proper party to the action, and is not demurrable on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as against him.

Appeal from special term, Westchester county.

Action by the Albany City National Bank against the Hudson River Brick Manufacturing Company, impleaded, to foreclose a chattel mortgage executed by Bernard J. McG-uire and others to Sullivan & Ehlers. From an interlocutory judgment overruling a demurrer of defendant brick company to the amended complaint, said brick company appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before DYKMAN and CULLEN, JJ.

Lent & Herrick, for appellant.

Parker & Fiero (J. Newton Fiero, of counsel), for respondent.

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The action is for the fore*794closure of a chattel mortgage, and the allegation in respect to the brick company is that it has, or claims to have, some interest in the mortgaged property. The brick company demurred to the complaint on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against it. The statement already recited was sufficient to show that the brick company was a proper party to the action, and it is not necessary for us to determine the relief to which the plaintiff is entitled under that allegation. The defendant against whom it is made must protect its interest, and in case of failure to do so the complaint is sufficient to enable the plaintiff to take judgment of foreclosure and sale, as against all rights which are subordinate to the mortgage. Our conclusion is that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
---

---

# Exhibit 13.2

Certification of
Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

In connection with the annual report
on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 of MIND C.T.I. Ltd. (the
Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Commission) on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
I, Itay Barzilay, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

| | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 29, 2009

|By: /s/ Itay Barzilay
Itay BarzilayChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
#### Leavitte et al., Appellant, *v.*Drive-It-Yourself Company.

*Appeals*— Affidavit *of defense*— Refusal *of judgment*— Practice *Superior Court.*

An appeal from a refusal to enter judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense will be dismissed, where the appellate court cannot say that it is clear and free from doubt that the court below erred in the order discharging the rule.

Argued November 12,1925.

Appeal No. 326 October T., 1925, by plaintiff from judgment of C. P. No. 2 Philadelphia County, June T., 1925, No. 9, discharged rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in the case of Jerome J. Leavitte and Cecil Rudin, Co-partners, Trading as Iron City Wiping Materials Company v. Drive-It-Yourself Company, a Maryland corporation.

Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

*549December 14, 1925:

Buie for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

Before Stern, J. and Gordon, J.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

Buie discharged. Plaintiff appealed.

*Error assigned*was the order of the court, quoting it.

*James Yearsley,*for appellant.

*Franje A. Chalmers,*and with him *Millard K. Goe,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

This foreign attachment in .assumpsit was issued to recover the price of certain sponges and chamois sold and delivered the defendant. The appeal is taken from the refusal of the court below to enter judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly s,aid that an appeal in such case is intended to reach only clear cases of error in law and prevent the delay incident to a trial: Wilson v. Bryn Mawr Trust Co., 225 Pa. 143; Griffith v. Sitgreaves, 81 Pa. 378; Kidder Elevator Interlock Co. v. Muckle, 198 Pa. 388. In Holland v. Iron Works, 9 Pa. Superior Ct. 261, after referring to the above rule, we said: “Appeals, such as this, not infrequently result in greater delay than procedure in due course to a trial. They should not be encouraged. ’ ’

After reading the statement of claim and the affidavit of defense, and giving full consideration to the argument of counsel for the appellant, we cannot say it is “clear and free from doubt” that the court below erred in the order complained of; and following the practice of the Supreme Court (Brown v. Unger, 269 Pa. 471, 472; Snyder v. Baer, 282 Pa. 291, 292) we *550shall not discuss the facts or the applicable rules of law until called upon to do so after an opportunity is had to develop the former at trial.

The appeal is dismissed, without prejudice, etc.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON - DIVISION ONE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ) AND INDUSTRIES OF THE STATE OF) WASHINGTON, ) ) Appellant, )

) v. ) ) ) ) Respondent. ) RONALD V. MA'AE, No. 78030-1-1

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: April 1, 2019 SCHINDLER,J.— The Department of Labor and Industries (Department)appeals the superior court order affirming the decision and order of the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (BlIA).1 The BHA reversed the decision of the Department to deny the application of Ronald V. Ma'ae to reopen his industrial injury claim because he did not submit medical documentation from a Department network provider as required under the 2012 amendmentto WAC 296-14-400. WASH.Si.REG.12-06-066 (effective January 1, 2013). The BHA concluded the statute establishing a health care provider network, RCW 51.36.010,and the statute that allows a worker to reopen a claim for aggravation,RCW 51.32.160,do not limit a workerfrom filing an application to reopen

1 The facts are fully setforth in Ma'ae v. Department of Labor & Industries, No. 77737-8-1 (Wash. Ct.App.Apr. 1, 2019), http://www.courts.wa.gov/ opinions/.No.78030-1-1/2

with medical documentation only from a Department network provider. The BHA remanded to the Department to consider the medical documentation submitted by a doctor who is not a member ofthe provider network. In Ma'ae, No.77737-8-1,we held promulgating the amendment to WAC 296-14- 400 exceeded the authority of the Department and is invalid. Accordingly,we affirm the superior court order. Upon compliance with RAP 18.1, Ma'ae is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under RCW 51.52.130.

WE CONCUR: 

# y

2
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5827 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 29, 2010 

Received 

AUGUST 5, 2010 

Read the first time 

AN ACT 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to include 

firearms in the types of property allowable under the 

alternative provision for exempting property from the 

estate. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5827 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Gun Own3 ers in Bankruptcy Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXEMPTIONS. 

5 Section 522 of title 11, the United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (d) by adding at the end the 

8 following: 

9 ‘‘(13) The debtor’s aggregate interest, not to 

10 exceed $3,000 in value, in a single rifle, shotgun, or 

11 pistol, or any combination thereof.’’, and 

12 (2) in subsection (f)(4)(A)— 

13 (A) in clause (xiv) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

14 end, 

15 (B) in clause (xv) by striking the period at 

16 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’, and 

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

18 ‘‘(xvi) The debtor’s aggregate interest, not to 

19 exceed $3,000 in value, in a single rifle, shotgun, or 

20 pistol, or any combination thereof.’’. 

21 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS. 

22 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub23 section (b), this Act and the amendments made by this 

24 Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 

25 Act. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 5827 RDS

1 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.—The amend2 ments made by this Act shall apply only with respect to 

3 cases commenced under title 11 of the United States Code 

4 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 28, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 77 (Thursday, April 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9984]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:00 a.m. on 
Tuesday, April 18, 2000, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's 
Board of Directors will meet in closed session, pursuant to sections 
552b(c)(2), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10), of 
Title 5, United States Code, to consider matters relating to the 
Corporation's supervisory, corporate, and personnel activities.
    The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of 
the FDIC Building located at 550--17th Street, NW, Washington, DC.
    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be 
directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the 
Corporation, at (202) 898-6757.

    Dated: April 14, 2000.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-9984 Filed 4-18-00; 12:42 pm]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 582 

To reauthorize the public and assisted housing drug elimination program 

of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2009 

Ms. LEE of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the public and assisted housing drug elimination program of the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Public Housing Drug 

5 Elimination Program Reauthorization Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING DRUG ELIMI7 NATION PROGRAM. 

8 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

9 5129 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 582 IH

1 11908) is amended by striking subsection (a) and insert2 ing the following new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be ap4 propriated to carry out this chapter such sums as may 

5 be necessary for each of fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 

6 2011.’’. 

7 (b) ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.—Section 5124(a)(6) of 

8 the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 

9 11903(a)(6)) is amended by striking the semicolon at the 

10 end and inserting the following: ‘‘, except that the activi11 ties conducted under any program carried out in whole 

12 or in part with grant amounts provided pursuant to this 

13 paragraph may include only— 

14 ‘‘(A) providing treatment for drug abuse 

15 through rehabilitation or relapse prevention; 

16 ‘‘(B) providing education about the dan17 gers and adverse consequences of drug use or 

18 violent crime; 

19 ‘‘(C) identifying drug users, assisting such 

20 users in discontinuing their drug use through 

21 an education program, and, if appropriate, re22 ferring the users to a drug treatment program; 

23 ‘‘(D) providing after school activities for 

24 youths for the purpose of discouraging, reducVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:47 Jan 20, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H582.IH H582

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•HR 582 IH

1 ing, or eliminating drug use or violent crime by 

2 youths; 

3 ‘‘(E) providing capital improvements for 

4 the purpose of discouraging, reducing, or elimi5 nating drug use or violent crime; and 

6 ‘‘(F) providing security services for the 

7 purpose of discouraging, reducing, or elimi8 nating drug use or violent crime.’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
THIS VERSION INCLUDES AN ERRATA DATED 22SEP00-e

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 99-1169

SANDRA E. BOOTH, APPELLANT,

V.

HERSHEL W. GOBER,

ACTING SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before FARLEY, HOLDAWAY, and GREENE, Judges.

O R D E R

Sandra E. Booth, Esq., through counsel, appeals a March 1999 decision of the Board of

Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) which determined that she had met the requirements for payment

of attorney fees pursuant to a May 13, 1993, fee agreement. The appeal stems from the "end" date

used to calculate the amount of fees to which she is entitled. 

The veteran, Howard Hodge, filed a claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric

disability and for a back disability. The Board denied the claims in January 1993, and in April of

the same year the veteran entered into a fee agreement with the appellant. That agreement provided

for attorneys fees in the amount of 20% of all past-due benefits recovered on behalf of the veteran

bythe appellant. In November 1994, theCourt vacated the Board's decision and remanded the claim.

The Board in turn remanded the claim in February 1995, and the VA regional office (VARO)

eventually granted entitlement and awarded a retroactive effective date with past-due benefits.

Thereafter, the VARO forwarded the fee agreement to the BVA, which determined that the appellant

was eligible for attorney fees under 38 U.S.C. § 5904 (C)(2). However, such determinations are

improper for the Board to make. This Court recently held that:

[T]he Board is specifically provided with original jurisdiction as to fee agreements,

to "review" sua sponte or at the request of either party a fee agreement filed with the

Board, and it "may order a reduction in the fee called for in the agreement if the

Board finds that the fee is excessive or unreasonable." 38 U.S.C. § 5904 (c)(2).

. . . .

The Federal Circuit also noted that section 5904 (c)(2) provided the Board

only the authority to review for "reasonableness." . . . . The authority to review fee

agreements for "eligibility" does not appear in the statute . . . . 
2

See Scates v. Gober, __ Vet.App. __, __, No. 97-875, slip op. at 3 (August 14, 2000). 

In the instant appeal, the VARO, the agency which had original jurisdiction, never made a

decision as to the appellant's eligibility for an award of attorney fees. Rather, the VARO forwarded

the matter to the Board for the determination. However, the VARO's forwarding of the matter, and

the Board's subsequent decision as to eligibility were without authority. Therefore, the Court will

vacate the Board's decision and remand the case for proper adjudication. 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, the record on appeal, and the parties' motions, it

is

ORDERED that the Board's decision of March 29, 1999 is VACATED, for want of

original jurisdication to decide eligibility for direct payment of a withheld contingency fee under

section 5904, and the matter is REMANDED to the Board with directions to dismiss the matter

of direct-payment fee eligibility as referred to the board by the VARO. See Scates, Supra.

DATED: Sep 14, 2000 PER CURIAM.
ntn_10k-ex404.htm


 












Exhibit 4.1







[OBVERSE]








	
Common Stock

	
Common Stock












Buzztime®


>>PLAY ALONG TV®








	
Number

	
    Shares













	
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

	
  SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS












NTN BUZZTIME, INC.







This Certifies That _______________


is the record holder of _____________







FULLY PAID AND NONASSESABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, $.005 PAR VALUE OF


NTN BUZZTIME, INC.







transferable on the books of the  Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney on surrender of this certificate properly endorsed.  This certificate shall not be valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar.







WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized officers.


Dated: _________________













	






SECRETARY

	
[SEAL]

	






CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER






















[REVERSE]







THe Corporation shall furnish without charge to each holder who so requests a statement of the powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock of the Corporation or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights.  Such requests shall be made to the Corporation's Secretary at the principal office of the Corporation.







KEEP THIS CERTIFICATE IN A SAFE PLACE.  IF IT IS LOST, STOLEN, OR DESTROYED TEH CORPORATION WILL REQUIRED A BOND OF INDEMNITY AS CONDITION TO THE ISSUANCE OF A REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATE.







The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:





	
TEN COM – as tenants in common

	
UNIF GIFT MIN ACT–        

	
Custodian          .


	
TEN ENT – as tenants by the entireties


 

	
                    (Cust)

	
(Minor)


	
JT TEN – as joint tenants with right of  survivorship and not as tenants


in common

	  	
under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act


	  	  	
(State)


 


	  	
UNIF TRF MIN ACT– ...........

	
Custodian (until age.....)


	  	
                    (Cust)

	
(Minor)


	  	
to Minors Act

	
(State)


 

















Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.







[STOCK POWER]
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF
2002


The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and
the Chief Financial Officer of Equity Office Properties Trust
(the Company), each hereby certifies that to his/
her knowledge, on the date hereof:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (a) the Form 10-Q of the Company for
    the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, filed on the date
    hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
    Report) fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934; and
|
| | (b) information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                     

Date: August 9, 2004

| |     |                       
| | --- | ----------------------
| | By: | /s/ RICHARD D. KINCAID

| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| |                                          
| | Richard D. Kincaid                       
| | President and Chief Executive
    Officer
| | of Equity Office Properties Trust,       
| | the general partner of EOP               
| | Operating Limited Partnership            

Date: August 9, 2004

| |     |                       
| | --- | ----------------------
| | By: | /s/ MARSHA C. WILLIAMS

| |                                   
| | ----------------------------------
| |                                   
| | Marsha C. Williams                
| | Executive Vice President          
| | and Chief Financial Officer       
| | of Equity Office Properties Trust,
| | the general partner of EOP        
| | Operating Limited Partnership