alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ellis Arnoff and Others, as Executors of and Trustees under the Last Will and Testament of Louis Arnoff, Deceased, Respondents, *v.*The Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

July 13, 1936.

*210*O’Connor & Farber [Earle B. Koons*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Otto A. Samuels,*for the respondents.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by defendant from an order granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

The action is upon a written guaranty of two interest warrants which guaranty provides that the defendant will “ hereby guarantee to the legal holder of this Bond Certificate the payment of the principal thereof and of the attached interest warrants as the same fall due, according to their tenor upon condition that at its option it is to be allowed twelve months from the date of maturity of such Bond Certificate, whether by lapse of time, declaration or otherwise, within which to pay the principal amount, but with interest in the meantime.”

The interest warrants, which were signed by the American Trust Company as trustee, read as follows; *“*Due to bearer on the 15th day of --— but payable only out of such money properly applicable to the payment hereof as may be received by American Trust Company, as Trustee * * * $30 in United States' gold coin or its equivalent * * * being six months’ interest then due on the share of the 6% Serial Gold Bond of B & C Nieberg Realty Co., Inc. evidenced by and subject to all the provisions of certificate No. —-—■—■— issued by the undersigned, dated as of the 15th day of May, 1927.”

The warrants were attached to certificates. The certificates refer to a bond and mortgage the terms of which are set forth in a trust indenture.

*211Defendant contends that certain provisions contained in the certificates as well as others set forth in the trust indenture and referred to in the certificates are to be read into the guaranty. We do not so interpret that document. It guarantees the payment of the warrants according to their tenor as they fall due, with the sole proviso for a moratorium period of twelve months as to the principal but with interest in the meantime. The phrase “ according to their tenor ” contained in the guaranty appears to refer solely to the time when the warrants fall due. Even though it be given the broader meaning so as to include all the conditions of the warrants by reference it does not fairly place a warrant holder on notice of any restriction on the principal debtor’s absolute promise to pay interest warrants on maturity. (See *Cunningham*v. *Pressed Steel Car Co.,*263 N. Y. 671.)

In any event, the provision contained in the certificate that the bond and mortgage and guaranty are held by the trustee for the benefit of the bearer should not be construed to prevent suit by the holder on the guaranty. Such interpretation would nullify the express promise in the warrant to pay bearer and that in the guaranty to pay the holder.

Judgment and order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

All concur. Present ■— Levy, Callahan and Franken-THALER, JJ.
### **Exhibit 31.1**

**PRINCIPALEXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATIONUnder Rule 13a-14 (a) / 15d-14 (a)**

I, Jack R. Ingram,certify that:

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of XETA Technologies, Inc;

2.               Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a)              designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)             evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and

c)              disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a)              all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)             any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Dated:  February 28, 2007
| /s/ Jack R. Ingram       |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Jack R. Ingram           |
| Chief Executive  Officer |

 

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 97 (Thursday, May 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 28294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12033]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--PXI Systems Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 1, 2010, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Tyco Electronics, 
Middletown, PA; OpenATE, Inc., Taipei City, TAIWAN; and Logic 
Instrument USA, Inc., Owings Mills, MD, have been added as parties to 
this venture. Also, Eberspacher Electronics GmbH & Co. KG, Goppingen, 
GERMANY; VX Instruments GmbH, Landshut-Altdorf, GERMANY; Keithly 
Instruments, Solon, OH; Elektrobit Austria GmbH, Vienna, AUSTRIA; 
DiagnoSYS Systems Ltd., Hampshire, UNITED KINGDOM; and Elma Electronic 
Inc., Fremont, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. intends 
to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a Notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on February 12, 
2010. A Notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on March 23, 2010 (75 FR 13781).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-12033 Filed 5-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-93553, 333-58229, 333-42192, 333-39026, and 333-38535 of Hall Kinion &
Associates, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 2,
2001, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hall, Kinion & Associates,
Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2000.





Deloitte & Touche, LLP
San Jose, California
March 23, 2001
#### Christopher Migliaccio, Plaintiff, *v.*Louis Cappola, Defendant.

City Court of New York, Kings County,

May 26, 1936.

*Emery & Pyne,*for the judgment debtor.

*Jerome J. Licari,*for the judgment creditor.

Gallagher, J.

The motion by the judgment debtor to vacate the garnishment presents again the question whether the wages of a seaman on a vessel engaged in coastwise trade are exempt from garnishment. The question was recently answered in the affirmative by the Appellate Division of this department. *(Manufacturers Trust Co.*v. *Anderson,*241 App. Div. 843.) The observation of the judgment creditor that the court in that case overlooked the enactment of and pertinent provisions in title 46 of the United States Code, is not borne out by a reading of the opinion. The creditor concedes the debtor in this proceeding to be a seaman on a vessel engaged in coastwise trade. The statute upon which he relies to uphold the garnishment (Act of June 9,1874,18 U. S. Stat. at Large, 64, re-enacted June 30, 1926, as § 544, U. S. Code, tit. 46) does not purport to repeal immunity from attachment of wages of seamen on all vessels engaged in coastwise trade. Certain indicated vessels ■in that trade are expressly excepted by the repealing statute. The creditor having failed to show that the debtor does not w<wk on one of the excepted vessels, the statute is not applicable. (Bloom*558*ingdale Bros., Inc.,*v. *Butler,*150 Misc. 903, App. Term, 1st Dept.) This failure of proof would render the garnishment invalid, even if the statutory construction urged by the creditor were adopted and the decision in *Manufacturers Trust Co.*v. *Anderson (supra)*ignored. The creditor’s construction seems to be, and he cites a case which tends to support his view *(Duggar*v. *Mobile & Gulf Nav. Co.,*224 Ala. 359; 140 So. 614), that Congress by re-enacting in 1926 the repealing act of June 9, 1874, as section 544 of title 46 of the United States Code, intended to remove the protection it had previously given seamen with respect to their wages, where the seamen were employed on coastwise vessels, notwithstanding that Congress had in 1915 (Act of March 4,1915, chap. 153, § 12, 38 U. S. Stat. at Large, 1164, 1169 [U. S. Code, tit. 46, § 601]) not only in terms restored this protection to all seamen, but expressly extended it to fishermen employed on fishing vessels, and notwithstanding that this statute of March 4, 1915, was in 1926 also re-enacted as section 601 of title 46 of the United States Code. That the act of 1915 restored the protection to all seamen seems to be the more reasonable construction. It was so indicated in a dictum in the last sentence of the opinion in *Inter-Island Steam Nav. Co.*v. *Byrne*(239 U. S. 459; 36 S. Ct. 132; 60 L. Ed. 382), and although the case was decided before the adoption of the United States Code, the dictum carries considerable weight.

Motion to vacate the garnishment granted. Submit order.
Exhibit 12.2  CERTIFICATION  I, Darren G. Myers, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Celestica Inc.;  2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:  a.Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b.Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c.Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d.Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and


5.The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a.All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b.Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 13, 2017/s/ Darren G. MyersDarren   G. MyersChief   Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOEL BECK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, DBA 

Mr. Cooper; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 

as Trustee Securitized Trust Structured; 

FIRST AMERICAN TRUSTEE 

SERVICING SOLUTIONS, LLC, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 23-15203 

D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00225-MMD-CLB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Joel Beck appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 

action alleging a due process claim arising from state court proceedings. We have 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 30 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-15203 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 

F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Beck’s action as barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine because it amounted to a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior 

state court judgment and raised a constitutional claim that was “inextricably 

intertwined” with that judgment. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing proper application 

of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993 

F.3d 1134, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine 

applies even where the challenge to the state court decision involves federal 

constitutional issues); Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 860 (9th Cir. 

2008) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a claim of extrinsic fraud if the alleged fraud 

has been separately litigated in a state action).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending requests are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 27845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11751]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12107 and <greek-i>12108]


New Jersey Disaster Number NJ-00014

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-1897-DR), dated 04/02/
2010.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 03/12/2010 Through 04/15/2010.
    Effective Date: 05/07/2010.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/01/2010.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/03/2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster 
declaration for the State of New Jersey, dated 04/02/2010 is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:

Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): 
Burlington, Cumberland, Ocean.

    All other counties contiguous to the above named primary counties 
have previously been declared.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-11751 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
##### 



BOWATER INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES
 Exhibit 12.1
 Bowater Incorporated
Statement of Computation of Unaudited Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 (in millions, except ratio information)
 Six Months Ended June 30,2006
    
    2005Earnings:Income (loss) before income taxes, minority interests
and cumulative effect of accounting change
    
    $
    13.3
    
    
    $
    (16.8
    )Add: Fixed charges from below
    
    
    105.0
    
    
    
    102.9Less: Capitalized interest
    
    
    2.8
    
    
    
    0.2$
    115.5
    
    
    $
    85.9Fixed Charges:Interest expense, net of interest capitalized
    
    $
    98.7
    
    
    $
    99.5Capitalized interest
    
    
    2.8
    
    
    
    0.2Estimate of interest within rental expense
    
    
    1.6
    
    
    
    0.9Amortized premium and discounts related to indebtedness
    
    
    1.9
    
    
    
    2.3$
    105.0
    
    
    $
    102.9Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    1.1x
    
    
    
    Deficiency of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    17.0
 49
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,238
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             160
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     51,766
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          11,639
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            11,504
<LOANS>                                        196,247
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 269,797
<DEPOSITS>                                     186,001
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,203
<LONG-TERM>                                     62,162
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,431
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 269,797
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,699
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,124
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,823
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,384
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,340
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,483
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       19
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,159
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    485
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         485
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       329
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.46
<LOANS-NON>                                        260
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,576
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    285
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   977
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,032
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               266
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            766


</TABLE>