alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DIAZ A. et al. v. PATTERSON.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 10, 1922.)

No. 3835.

Adverse possession <g=»48—Not interrupted by recording of deed by adverse claimant.

Mere recording of a deed by one claimant does not interrupt tbe actual possession of an adverse claimant under a previously recorded title.

f§zs>For Gtber cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Canal Zone; John W. Hanan, Judge.

Suit in equity by Domingo Diaz A. and others against Guillermo Patterson. Decree for defendant, and complainants appeal.

Affirmed.

Harry P. Gamble and Harry McEnerny, Jr., both of New Orleans, Da., and William H. Jackson, of New York City, for appellants.

Wm, C. MacIntyre, of Ancon, Canal Zone, and Edwin T. Merrick and Ralph J. Schwarz, both of New Orleans, La. (Todd & MacIntyre, of Cristobal, Canal Zone, and Merrick, Gensler<& Schwartz, of New Orleans, La., on the brief), for appellee.

Before WALKER, BRYAN and KING, Circuit Judges.

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

The case is fully stated in 262 Fed. 899, upon a former appeal. There a decree in favor of the original plaintiffs and present appellants was reversed, and the case remanded for findings upon the evidence as to possession of the land is dispute.

Upon the evidence then in the record, and upon additional evidence taken since, the trial court has found that the original defendant Patterson, appellee here, has been in actual adverse possession for more than 30 years, and, further, that appellants have never been in possession of the lands in dispute. The court also finds as a fact that appellee established record title.

Appellants do not assign, error upon the finding that record title is in appellee, nor is it seriously contended that there was not testimony to support the other findings of fact. Some contention is made as to the credibility of witnesses for appellants, but the District Judge heard the witnesses testify, and also viewed the lands. There is abundant *395evidence to support the finding of fact as to appellee’s possession, but no useful purpose would be served by setting it forth.

The principal argument for reversal of the decree below is upon the question of law decided upon the former appeal. It is again argued that the mere recording of a deed by one claimant interrupts the actual possession of an adverse claimant under a previously recorded title. We are convinced that this is not the law, and adhere to our former opinion.

The decree is affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Overseas Private Investment Corporation

# Contact Person for Information:

Information on the meeting may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438.

Connie M. Downs,

OPIC Corporate Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-14567 Filed 6-6-01; 10:21 am]

BILLING CODE 3210-01-M
#### Panuncio Munoz ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72685.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Decided June 10, 2010.

Michael Franquinha, Aguirre Law Group APC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.

Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Panuneio Munoz Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable for having participated in alien smuggling. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Altamirano v. Gonzales,*427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.2005), and claims of constitutional violations, *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Ortiz’s due process rights were not violated by admission of the Record of De-portable/Iixadmissible Alien (“Form I-213”) because the fonn was probative and its admission was not fundamentally unfair, and the preparing officer testified at the hearing x-egarding the preparation of the form. *See Espinoza v. INS,*45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir.1995) (noting that “[t]he sole test for admission of evidence [in a deportation proceeding] is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair”).

We lack jui'isdiction over Ortiz’s unex-hausted contention that the admission of the Form 1-213 violated due process because it did not demonstrate whether a *625government agent had informed him of his regulatory rights. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 23.1

                                AUDITOR'S CONSENT

The Board of Directors
e.spire Communications, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-56128) on Form S-8 of e.spire Communications, Inc. of our report dated
February 16, 2001, except as to Notes 1, 6, 10(a) and 17(c) which are as of
March 22, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of e.spire
Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999, and 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' deficit and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31 2000 and
the related schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2000, annual
report on Form 10-K of e.spire Communications, Inc.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going
concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the
Company has suffered recurring losses from operations, has a net capital
deficiency, defaulted on certain of its notes payable and filed voluntary
petitions for protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
Although the Company and its subsidiaries are currently operating their
businesses as debtors-in-possession under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy
Court, the continuation of the Company as a going concern is dependent upon,
among other things, the ability to formulate a plan of reorganization which will
gain approval of the creditors and confirmation by the Bankruptcy Court. The
filing under Chapter 11 and the other factors noted above, as discussed in Note
1 to the consolidated financial statements, raise substantial doubt about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The accompanying consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, effective July
1, 1999, the Company changed its method of accounting for revenue recognition
associated with leasing its fiber-optic network.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Washington, DC
June 19, 2001
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: PAUL J. MILLER 

DOCKET NUMBER: 158 

DATE: MARCH 29, 1969 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 158 

Name: Paul J. Miller 

Effective March 29, 1969 

Respondents Paul J. Miller and R. Peter Denker shall cease and desist from: 

(1) willfully causing, aiding, abetting, counseling, commanding, inducing, or 

procuring the failure of respondent Sterling Securities, Inc., or of any other 

futures commission merchant, (a) to comply with the requirements of section 4d 

of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6d) in the treatment and handling of 

customers' funds, and (b) to prepare and maintain an accurate record, as of the 

close of the market on each business day, of the amount of money, securities, 

and property which must be in segregated account in order to comply with the 

requirements of section 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6d); and (2) 

willfully making or Causing to be made any false or misleading statement of any 

material fact in any report filed with the Secretary of Agriculture under the 

Commodity Exchange Act, and willfully omitting or causing to be omitted from any 

such report any material fact which is required to be stated therein, and 

willfully aiding, abetting, counseling, commanding, inducing, or procuring such 

an act or omission. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

February 27, 1969 

Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: RAYMOND A. GERSTENBERG, RAYMOND M. GERSTENBERG GERSTENBERG & CO., AND JOHN 

W. DICKSON, JR. 

CITATION: 26 Agric. Dec. 947 

DOCKET NUMBER: 141 

DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1967 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER OF CORRECTION 

NOTE: CORRECTS DECISION AND ORDER REPORTED IN 26 AGRIC. DEC. 816 

(No. 11,395) 

In re RAYMOND A. GERSTENBERG, RAYMOND M. GERSTENBERG GERSTENBERG & CO., and JOHN 

W. DICKSON, JR. CEA Docket No. 141. Decided September 28, 1967. 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

ORDER OF CORRECTION

In this proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), it 

was concluded, in part, in a decision and order issued August 29, 1967, that 

"each of the respondents prepared and kept false and incomplete records of 

futures transactions" in violation of the act and the regulations issued 

thereunder. Respondent John W. Dickson, Jr. has called to the attention of 

complainant, and complainant agrees, that such conclusion is in error with 

respect to such respondent in that he so prepared and kept only one record in a 

single futures transaction (See Finding of Fact 10 of decision and order of 

August 29, 1967). Accordingly, the conclusions contained in the decision and 

order of August 29, 1967, are hereby considered amended to reflect the 

correction of such error. 

LOAD-DATE: June 8, 2008 
Page 2
Exhibit 23.2
 
 
 
 
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCUONTING FIRM
 
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-4300, 333-103219, 333-31002 and 333-45221 on Form S-8 of STRATTEC SECURITY CORPORATION of our report dated July 29, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements of STRATTEC SECURITY CORPORATION as of June 29, 2003, and for the years ended June 29, 2003 and June 30, 2002, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of STRATTEC SECURITY CORPORATION for the year ended June 27, 2004.
 
 
 DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
 
 /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
 Milwaukee, Wisconsin
 August 25, 2004
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: ARTHUR N. ECONOMOU AND ARTHUR N. ECONOMOU & CO. INC. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 167 

DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1973 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STAY ORDER 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Arthur N. Economou and Arthur N. Economou & Co., Inc., Respondents 

CEA Docket No. 167 

Stay Order 

The respondents have requested a stay, pending appeal to the Court of 

Appeals, of paragraphs three and four of the Order filed January 15, 1973, in 

this proceeding prohibiting respondents from trading and suspending respondent 

corporation's registration for 90 days. Accordingly, paragraphs three and four 

of the Order filed January 15, 1973, are stayed pending the outcome of the 

judicial review proceeding. The cease and desist provisions in paragraphs one 

and two of the Order shall remain in effect. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

February 12, 1973 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Donald A. Campbell 

Judicial Officer 

Office of the Secretary 

LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2008 
Page 2
(March 17, 2009)

#### Estela Alvarez, Appellant, v American International Realty Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. ABM Industries, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[876 NYS2d 435]—

*794In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), entered July 10, 2007, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the defendant third-party plaintiff separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied, as academic, that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to American International Realty Corp., payable by Estela Alvarez, and one bill of costs to ABM Industries, Inc., payable by American International Realty Corp.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell in front of a freight elevator in a building owned by the defendant third-party plaintiff American International Realty Corp. (hereinafter AIRC). The third-party defendant ABM Industries, Inc. (hereinafter ABM) was hired by AIRC, inter alia, to maintain the lobby area. Although the plaintiff did not observe any wetness on the lobby floor before the accident, she suggested that the floor was wet because it was raining that day. The plaintiff further claimed that, at the time of the accident, there were rain mats on the lobby floor from the front of the entrance to the security desk, but no rain mats in front of the freight elevator where she fell.

AIRC established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the alleged water condition that caused the plaintiff’s injuries *(see Granera v 32nd St. 99 Corp.,*46 AD 3d 750, 751 [2007]). In opposition, “the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to causation or notice, relying, instead, on speculation as to the source of the water” *(Costello v Zaidman,*58 AD3d 593, 594 [2009]; *see Akhtar v Zucker,*50 AD3d 932, 933 [2008]). Further, the unsworn report of the plaintiffs expert was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]; *Mazzola v City of New York,*32 AD3d 906, 907 [2006]; *cf.*CPLR 2106).

Since the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of AIRC’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, it also properly denied, as academic, that branch of AIRC’s motion which was for summary judgment on the third-party complaint. Rivera, J.P, Ritter, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.
Bill PRYOR, Attorney General for the State of Al abama, State of Alabama, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. Janet RENO, Attorney General of the United Stat es, United States of America, Defendants-Appellees. No. 98-6261. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 11, 2000. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (No. CV-97-D-1396-N); Ira DeMent, Judge. ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, and GODB OLD and HILL, Senior Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: The Supreme Court of the United States, having vacated and remanded this case for further consideration in the light of Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. ----, 120 S. Ct. 666, 145 L.Ed .2d 587 (2000) it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the judgment of the district court in the above-referenced case is hereby VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama for further consideration in light of Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. ----, 120 S.Ct. 666 (2000).
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





In connection with the Annual Report of Pluristem Therapeutics Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(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: September 12, 2011




/s/ Yaky Yanay

Yaky Yanay

Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0 176 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NATALIE AMANDA RICH ,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 3 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 30 2020

06/30/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0176
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 155 

Recognizing Filipino American Heritage Month and celebrating the heritage 

and culture of Filipino Americans and their immense contributions to 

the Nation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2009 

Mr. FILNER (for himself, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. HONDA, Mr. ISSA, and Mr. 

SCOTT of Virginia) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing Filipino American Heritage Month and celebrating the heritage and culture of Filipino Americans 

and their immense contributions to the Nation. 

Whereas the first Filipinos to set foot in North America arrived in the Morro Bay area, of what is now known as 

San Luis Obispo, California, on board the Manila-built 

galleon ship Nuestra Senora de Esperanza under the 

command of Spanish Captain Pedro de Unamuno; 

Whereas the first permanent Filipino settlement in North 

America was established in 1763 in Saint Malo, Louisiana; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 155 IH 

Whereas Filipino Americans have been a part of the American experience and have remained resolute and steadfast 

in the face of many difficult times and challenges; 

Whereas 2,900,000 Americans of Philippine ancestry currently live in the United States and more than 250,000 

American citizens live in the Philippines; 

Whereas Filipino Americans have made substantial contributions to American society in the arts, sciences, music, and 

literature; 

Whereas brave and courageous Filipinos and Filipino Americans such as the 250,000 Filipinos fought under the 

United States flag during World War II to protect and 

defend this country; 

Whereas the values and traditions of Filipino Americans have 

had a positive impact upon American society; and 

Whereas it is essential to promote the understanding, education, and appreciation of the history and culture of Filipino Americans in the United States: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the celebration of Filipino Amer3 ican Heritage Month; 

4 (2) honors the heritage and culture of Filipino 

5 Americans and their immense contributions to the 

6 life of this Nation; and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 155 IH 

1 (3) urges the people of the United States to ob2 serve Filipino American Heritage Month with appro3 priate programs and activities. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
| **Shareholder Fees - TargetedInternationalFunds-RetailComboPRO**        | Dec. 30, 2023 USD ($) |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
| TargetedInternationalFunds-RetailComboPRO | Fidelity Emerging Asia Fund |                  |
| **Shareholder Fees:**                                                   |                  |
| (fees paid directly from your investment)                               | none                  |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Other Expenses
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Form -Number N-1A -Chapter A -Section 3 -Subsection table -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph 10
+ Details**Name:**rr_ShareholderFeeOther**Namespace Prefix:**rr_**Data Type:**rr:NonNegativeMonetaryType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**rr_ShareholderFeesAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**rr_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**dei_DocumentInformationDocumentAxis=fmr_TargetedInternationalFunds-RetailComboPROMember**Namespace Prefix:****Data Type:**na**Balance Type:****Period Type:** |
| X                                                                                                                                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**dei_LegalEntityAxis=fmr_S000007102Member**Namespace Prefix:****Data Type:**na**Balance Type:****Period Type:** |
# FCM Data October 2010