alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael A. Longo et al., Respondents, v Estate of Lena Peters Sweeney, Deceased, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[802 NYS2d 291]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Herkimer County *1376(Michael E. Daley, J.), entered September 13, 2004 in a breach of contract action. The order granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, denied the cross motion of defendant The Estate of Lena Peters Sweeney, deceased, for summary judgment, and directed that defendant to sell certain real property to plaintiffs.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this breach of contract action and thereafter moved for summary judgment, seeking specific performance of the contract at issue, pursuant to which they were to purchase a parcel of vacant land owned by Lena Peters Sweeney (decedent). Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion. We reject the contention of defendant, decedent’s estate, that the contract failed to satisfy the statute of frauds. A contract for the sale of real property must, inter alia, “ ‘state all of the essential terms of a complete agreement’ ” *(Wacks v King,*260 AD2d 985, 986 [1999]; *see Simmonds v Marshall,*292 AD2d 592 [2002]; *Read v Henzel,*67 AD2d 186, 188-189 [1979]). “The law is well established that a contemplated contract which omits a material element is unenforceable” under the statute of frauds *(Ashkenazi v Kelly,*157 AD2d 578, 578 [1990]; *see Willmott v Giarraputo,*5 NY2d 250, 253 [1959]). Pursuant to the terms of the contract at issue herein, the purchase price was $50,000, and a $5,000 cash deposit was payable upon acceptance by plaintiffs, with $35,000 in owner financing and $10,000 in cash due at closing. The “Purchase Contract Addenda” set forth the terms of the purchase money mortgage, i.e., interest at. the rate of 9% per annum, amortized for a period of seven years, with the option to prepay any or all of the principal balance at any time and without penalty. Contrary to defendant’s contention, it cannot be said that the contract was merely an agreement to agree to a more formal contract in the future that would provide for the essential terms thereto and, indeed, there is no indication that further negotiations were contemplated *(see Wacks,*260 AD2d at 987; *cf. Willmott,*5 NY2d at 252-253; *O’Brien v West,*199 AD2d 369, 371 [1993]; *Read,*67 AD2d at 189). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Smith, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

IN RE: PETITION TO EMPANEL 

SECOND INDICTING GRAND JURY 

PETITION OF: HON. PAUL M. YATRON, 

PRESIDENT JUDGE OF BERKS 

COUNTY 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 59 MM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2015, the Petition to Empanel Second Indicting 

Grand Jury is GRANTED. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 556, Comment and Historical Notes.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

                               5TH AVENUE CHANNEL

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         573,949
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  199,376
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    466,717
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,340,458
<PP&E>                                         2,625,784
<DEPRECIATION>                                 980,851
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10,410,249
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,669,130
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9,661
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,048,070
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10,410,249
<SALES>                                        1,731,996
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,731,996
<CGS>                                          796,043
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  796,043
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,823,302
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             577,293
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,400,595)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,400,595)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.25)



</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Nicario L. CHRISTIAN.

No. 428P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

Lisa Miles, for Christian.

H. Dean Bowman, Special Deputy Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*362*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 16th day of August 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of March 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 16th day of August 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of March 2007."
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-41417 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ETELBERTO BARRERA-MENDOZA, a lso known as Jorge Barrera, also known as Mendoza E. Barrera, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:12-CR-283-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Def e n d e r appointed to represent Etelberto BarreraMendoza h as mov e d f o r l e ave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 ( 1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). B arrera-Mendoza has not f iled a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the r elevant p ortions of the record reflected therein. We c oncur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 20, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-41417 Document: 00512347384 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2013No. 12-41417

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-41417 Document: 00512347384 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2013
EXHIBIT 31.2
**Certification**
I, C. Keith Swaney, President, Chief Operating Officer and Treasurer of PVF Capital Corp.,certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PVF Capital Corp.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions);
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: May 6, 2005   /s/            C. Keith Swaney C. Keith            Swaney President,            Chief Operating Officer and Treasurer (Principal            Financial Officer)
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2014225EN.01009101.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 30.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 225/91 |

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, Council Regulations (EC) No 1683/95 and (EC) No 539/2001 and Regulations (EC) No 767/2008 and (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 182 of 29 June 2013](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2013_182_R_TOC)
)

On page 8, point (21) of Article 1:

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘(21) | Annexes III, IV, VI, VII and VIII to Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 are amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.’; |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘(21) | Annexes III to VIII to Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 are amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation.’. |

---
STATE v. Donnie Ray WINSTON.

No. 624P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 25, 2007.

James C. Holloway, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of December 2006 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review Under G.S. 7A-31:

*400"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 25th day of January 2007."
PROMISSORY NOTE

US $138,698.00                                                 Due on Demand

  FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned promises to pay on demand to or to
the order of ATLANTIC CENTRAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED ("ACE"), 41 Cedar Avenue,
Hamilton, HM12, Bermuda the principal amount of ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY EIGHT
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND NINETY EIGHT DOLLARS ($138,698) in lawful money of
the United States of America, and to pay interest at the rate of Ten percent
(10%) per annum calculated annually not in advance, both before and after
default, demand and judgment, on the principal amount and overdue interest, if
any, from time to time remaining unpaid, such interest to accrue from and
including the date hereof and to be payable annually commencing on the 1st day
of October, 1998. Payments shall be applied firstly in payment of unpaid
accrued interest and the balance if any in reduction of principal.

  The covenant to pay interest shall not merge on the taking of a judgment
or judgments with respect to any of the obligations herein stipulated for.

  This note shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and the
rights of the parties shall be governed by, the internal laws of the country
of Bermuda applicable to contracts made and to be performed entirely within
such jurisdiction without regard to the principles of conflict of law. Any
action, suit or proceeding in connection with this note may be brought against
ACE in a court of record of Bermuda, ACE hereby consenting and submitting to
the non-exclusive jurisdiction thereof. Service of process may be made upon
ACE, by certified or registered mail, at the address first set forth above, or
at such other address as may be given in writing by ACE in the future.

  The Borrower hereby waives demand and presentment for payment, notice of
non-payment, protest, notice of protest, notice of dishonor, bringing of suit
and diligence in taking any action.

  DATED at       this     day of     , 1997.

                                
                          FIRST AMERICAN-AMO, INC.

                          Per:  /s/ Jeffrey D. Dickson    c/s
                                ------------------------------
                                Jeffrey Dickson, President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7447

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SEBASTIAN A. PRYOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (CR-01-149; CA-03-872-3)

Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 3, 2005

Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sebastian A. Pryor, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Sebastian A. Pryor seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Pryor has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We 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. 

DISMISSED
STATE v. Paul Dewayne CUMMINGS.

No. 1A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 11, 2006.

William P. Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Amy Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Den David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of July 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Paul Dewayne Cummings) shall have up to and including the 2nd day of August 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of July 2006."
DELAWARE 

ηκΘ

ΨϬ͘ς^WEd/E

STATE 

ηκΘ

Ϭ͘ΘйK&^dd'W

Ϭ͘ϭй

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING 

Ψςρϭ

PER RESIDENT 

ηρϬ

ΨϬ͘ϮKEdZd

SPENDING 

ηκς

ε͕εεΘEhDZK&

PERSONNEL 

#44 

ΨϬ͘κWZ^KEE>

SPENDING 

 DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͗ ϭй ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĂŶĚ

^ƵƉƉůŝĞƐ ĂŶĚ ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͗ ϭςй

ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ͗Ϯκй

^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ͗ ρεй

By Service 

Army 

32% 

Navy/Marines 

6% 

Air Force 

25% 

Other Defense 

38% 

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

ůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͕LJdLJƉĞ

Reserve: 23% 

Active Duty: 35% 

National 

Guard: 27% 

Civilian: 15% 

ůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͕By Service 

Army 

24% 

Navy/Marines 

3% 

Air Force 

71% 

Other Defense 

1% 

Top Defense Contractors 

ŽďĐŽ/ŶĐ͘

^E/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂů

WŚĂƐĞ^ĞŶƐŝƟǀĞ/ŶŶŽǀĂƟŽŶƐ

ĞƌŽWƌĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĞƐ

ĂĞƐĂƌZŽĚŶĞLJ^ĐŚŽŽůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ

dĞƐůĂ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĞƐ

'ƌĞĂƚ>ĂŬĞƐƌĞĚŐĞĂŶĚŽĐŬ

͘K͘^ĂďŝŶŽŽƌƉ͘

ŐŝůĞŶƚdĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐŝĞƐ/ŶĐ͘

<ĂůŝƩĂŚĂƌƚĞƌƐ

;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

ΨκΘ͘ϬD

Ψϭϳ͘ϳD

Ψϭρ͘ϳD

Ψϭρ͘ϬD

Ψε͘ρD

Ψϳ͘ςD

Ψς͘ϳD

Ψρ͘ϮD

Ψϯ͘ϳD

ΨϮ͘εD

Contract Awards Performed ;LJ&ŝƐĐĂůzĞĂƌ͕ďŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

ΨϬ͘κ

ΨϬ͘ϯ

&zϭϮ &zϭκ

ΨϬ͘Ϯ

&zϭϯ &zϭρ

ΨϬ͘Ϯ ΨϬ͘Ϯ

ΨϬ͘Ϯ ΨϬ͘ϭ

&zϭς &zϭϳ

ΨϬ͘ϭ

&zϭΘ &zϭε

ΨκϮκ͘ΘD/>>/KE ε͕εεΘ

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

dŽƉĞĨĞŶƐĞWĞƌƐŽŶŶĞů>ŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ

ŽƵŶƚLJ ĐƟǀĞ ŝǀŝůŝĂŶ EĂƟŽŶĂů ZĞƐĞƌǀĞ dŽƚĂů

ƵƚLJ 'ƵĂƌĚ

<ĞŶƚ ϯ͕κΘϬ εϳΘ ϭϳρ ϭ͕ςΘΘ ς͕ϯϮϭ

EĞǁĂƐƚůĞ ϯϳ κϳϭ Ϯ͕ϬκϮ ρϳε ϯ͕ϭϮε

^ƵƐƐĞdž Ϭ Ϯϳ κρϮ ρϳ ρϯς

ϯϮ KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ>ŽĐĂůĞĨĞŶƐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶͶĞĨĞŶƐĞ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐďLJ^ƚĂƚĞ͕&zϮϬϭε
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 DELAWARE I S CAL YEAR 2 0 1 8

FISCAL YEAR 2019 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

EĞǁĂƐƚůĞ

<ĞŶƚ

^ƵƐƐĞdž

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS ;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

<ĞŶƚ

EĞǁĂƐƚůĞ

^ƵƐƐĞdž

;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

ΨϭϮϭ͘ϬD

Ψϳρ͘ρD

Ψϭϯ͘ϬD

<ĞŶƚ

EĞǁĂƐƚůĞ

^ƵƐƐĞdž

Ψϯϭϯ͘ρD

ΨϭϬϬ͘ϳD

Ψε͘ςD

&ĐƚŝǀĞ &'ƵĂƌĚ &ZĞƐĞƌǀĞ ƌŵLJĐƚŝǀĞ ƌŵLJ'ƵĂƌĚ ƌŵLJZĞƐĞƌǀĞ DĐƚŝǀĞ EĂǀLJĐƚŝǀĞ t,^

EĞǁĂƐƚůĞ

<ĞŶƚ

^ƵƐƐĞdž

KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ >ŽĐĂůĞĨĞŶƐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶͶĞĨĞŶƐĞ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐďLJ^ƚĂƚĞ͕&zϮϬϭε ϯϯ
Order entered May 13 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 00620 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF T .H.M. AND C.A.M., CH ILDREN On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219 - 53 138 - 2012



### O RDER We GRANT appellant’s May 11, 2015 second motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellant shall file a brief by June 11, 2015. We caution appellant that no further extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumst ances. /s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
CARTER-HUBBARD v. WRMC HOSPITAL.

No. 411A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 31, 2006.

John M. Logsdon, North Wilkesboro, for WRMC.

Mark W. Merritt, Blake W. Thomas, Charlotte, for CMHA.

Linwood Jones, Raleigh, for NC Hospital Asso.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of October 2006 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (Carter-Hubbard Publishing) shall have up to and including the 4th day of December 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 31st day of October 2006."
HALL v. TOREROS II, INC.

No. 187PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 18, 2007.

Howard F. Twiggs, Donald H. Beskind, Raleigh, Jesse H. Rigsby, IV, I. Beverly Lake, Jr., Jay H. Ferguson, Durham, for Theresa D. Hall.

Christopher J. Derrenbacher, Raleigh, Kathrine E. Downing, for Toreros, II, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th day of April 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Toreros, II, Inc.) shall have up to and including the 27th day of May 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 18th day of April 2007."
George WILCOX and wife, Betsy Wilcox v. BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 233P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Fred W. Devore, III, Charlotte, for George & Betsy Wilcox.

Roger H. Bruny, Charlotte, for Bankers Insurance Co.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 1st day of May 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5584 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

to identify a western passage of the CANAMEX Corridor in Arizona, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2008 

Mr. GRIJALVA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 to identify a western passage of the 

CANAMEX Corridor in Arizona, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CANAMEX CORRIDOR IN THE STATE OF ARI4 ZONA. 

5 Section 1105(c)(26) of the Intermodal Surface 

6 Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (109 Stat. 596) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘(26) The CANAMEX Corridor’’ and 

8 all that follows through subparagraph (A) and inserting 

9 the following: 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5584 IH

1 ‘‘(26) The CANAMEX Corridor from Nogales, 

2 Arizona, through Las Vegas, Nevada, to Salt Lake 

3 City, Utah, to Idaho Falls, Idaho, to Montana, to 

4 the Canadian Border, including a western passage in 

5 the State of Arizona from San Luis, as follows: 

6 ‘‘(A) In the State of Arizona— 

7 ‘‘(i) the CANAMEX Corridor shall 

8 generally follow— 

9 ‘‘(I) I–19 from Nogales to Tuc10 son; 

11 ‘‘(II) I–10 from Tucson to Phoe12 nix; and 

13 ‘‘(III) United States Route 93 in 

14 the vicinity of Phoenix to the Nevada 

15 Border; and 

16 ‘‘(ii) the western passage of the 

17 CANAMEX Corridor shall generally fol18 low— 

19 ‘‘(I) State Route 195 in the vi20 cinity of San Luis to United States 

21 Route 95 to State Route 95 to its 

22 intersection with I–40; 

23 ‘‘(II) I–40 to its intersection with 

24 United States Route 93 in the vicinity 

25 of Kingman; and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5584 IH

1 ‘‘(III) United States Route 93 to 

2 the Nevada Border.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Exhibit 15.1





August 2, 2022


Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, N.E.


Washington, DC 20549


Commissioners:


We are aware that our report dated August 5, 2021 on our review of the interim statements of operations, of changes in net assets and of cash flows of Apollo Investment Corporation for the three-month period ended June 30 2021, including the related notes of Apollo Investment Corporation, which appears in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, is incorporated by reference in the Registration Statement on Form N-2 (No.333-238518) of Apollo Investment Corporation.


Very truly yours,


/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


New York, New York