alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

Northern District of California

In re:

Debtor(s)

Bankruptcy No.:

R.S. No.:

Hearing Date:

Time:

Relief From Stay Cover Sheet

Instructions: Complete caption and Section A for all motions. Complete Section B for mobile homes, motor vehicles, and personal property.

Complete Section C for real property. Utilize Section C as necessary. If moving party is not a secured creditor, briefly summarize the nature

of the motion in Section D.

(A) Date Petition Filed: Chapter:

Prior hearings on this obligation: Last Day to File §523/§727 Complaints:

(B) Description of personal property collateral (e.g. 1983 Ford Taurus):

Secured Creditor [ ] or lessor [ ]

Fair market value: $________________ Source of value:__________________

Contract Balance: $________________ Pre-Petition Default: $_______________

Monthly Payment: $________________ No. of months: ___________

Insurance Advance: $________________ Post-Petition Default: $_______________

No. of months: ___________

(C) Description of real property collateral (e.g. Single family residence, Oakland, CA):

Fair market value: $_______________ Source of value:_______________ If appraisal, date:___________

Moving Party's position (first trust deed, second, abstract, etc.):

Approx. Bal. $_______________ Pre-Petition Default: $_______________

As of (date): _______________ No. of months: ____________

Mo. payment: $_______________ Post-Petition Default: $_______________

Notice of Default (date): __________ No. of months: ____________

Notice of Trustee's Sale: __________ Advances Senior Liens: $_______________

Specify name and status of other liens and encumbrances, if known (e.g. trust deeds, tax liens, etc.):

Position Amount Mo. Payment Defaults

1

st Trust Deed:_____________________ $_______________ $_______________ $_______________

2

nd Trust Deed: ____________________ $_______________ $_______________ $_______________

_________________________________:

_________________________________:

_________________________________:

(Total) $_______________ $_______________ $_______________

(D) Other pertinent information:

______________________________________

Signature

______________________________________

Print or Type Name

Attorney for___________________________________

CANB Documents Northern District of California 

Dated:

06/26/2019

9:30 am

01/29/2019

N/A

Thomas B. Rupp

/s/ Thomas B. Rupp

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2360 Filed: 06/03/19 Entered: 06/03/19 17:40:57 Page 1 of

1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 1998
10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,056
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          10,200
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     51,900
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          51,911
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            51,900
<LOANS>                                        143,359
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,485
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,561
<DEPOSITS>                                     167,620
<SHORT-TERM>                                     9,451
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,787
<LONG-TERM>                                     22,175
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,002
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,526
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 232,561
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 10,516
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,104
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   629
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                14,249
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,091
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,302
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,856
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       44
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  43
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,147
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,666
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,666
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,267
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.43
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.53
<LOANS-NON>                                        594
<LOANS-PAST>                                       387
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   846
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       56
<RECOVERIES>                                        12
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,485
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,485
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered December 20 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 00345

- CR

DEMEATRICE RENEE SHEPPARD , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from t he 397th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 071988

O RDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.

Appellant’s brief is overdue. Pursuant to this Court’s order, the trial court

held a hearing and made findings of fact concerning appella nt’s brief. The trial

court found appellant wished to pursue the appeal and that her counsel had not

abandoned the appeal. The trial court recommended that appellant’s counsel be

granted an extension of time to January 21, 2023 for counsel to file appell ant’sbrief. Accordingly, we ORDER Kyle T. Therrian , retained counsel for appellant,

to file appellant’s brief no later than Monday, JANUARY 23, 2023

.

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Jurisdiction of                 % of Voting
                                                                  Incorporation or              Securities held at
                   Name of Corporation                              Organization                December 31, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------   --------------------------     -------------------------

Consolidated subsidiaries:
<S>                                                              <C>                                     <C>
   Ti-Pro, LLC                                                   Nevada                                   90%
   TIMET Colorado Corporation                                    Colorado                                100%
   TIMET Millbury Corporation                                    Oregon                                  100%
     TIMET Castings Corporation                                  Delaware                                100%
   TIMET Finance Management Company                              Delaware                                100%
   TIMET UK Limited                                              United Kingdom                          100%
     TIMET UK (EXPORT) Limited                                   United Kingdom                          100%
     TIMET Europe Limited                                        United Kingdom                          100%
        TIMET Savoie, SA                                         France                                   70%
        TIMET Germany, GmbH                                      Germany                                 100%
     Titanium MC Limited                                         United Kingdom                          100%
   Titanium Hearth Technologies, Inc.                            Delaware                                100%
   TMCA International, Inc.                                      Delaware                                100%
     Loterios SpA                                                Italy                                   100%
   TIMET Real Estate Corporation                                 Colorado                                100%
   TIMET ASIA, INC.                                              Delaware                                100%

Unconsolidated subsidiary:
   TIMET Capital Trust I                                         Delaware                                100%

Unconsolidated affiliates:
   MZI, LLC                                                      Oregon                                   33%
   VALTIMET SAS                                                  France                                   44%
   XI'AN BAOTIMET VALINOX
     TUBES CO. LTD.                                              China                                    11%
</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Eliza Beatty Moore and Charles H. Godwin, as Executors of and Trustees under the Last Will and Testament of Claudius F. Beatty, Deceased, Appellants Jane Beatty and Others, Respondents.

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings county in so far as appealed from affirmed, with costs. No opinion,

Jenks, P. J., Hirschberg-, Burr, Woodward and Rich, JJ., concurred.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 30, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 30, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18I0253. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. CW MASONRY, INC. et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

17A00477
#### GEORGE I. AMSDELL and THEODORE M. AMSDELL, Appellants, *v.*JAMES McCAFFREY, Respondent.

*Notice o f appeal from, a justice’s judgment*— when *the grounds thereof are not sufficiently stated.*

Upon an appeal ñ-om a judgment of a justice’s court the notice of appeal stated as the grounds thereof, that it was “ against law and evidence.”

*Held,*that it was too vague and general to present any question for review. *Held,*further, that it was too defective to give the appellate court jurisdiction, even for the purpose of allowing it to he amended.

Appeal from an order- of the County Court of Kings county, -dismissing an appeal from a judgment of a justice’s court, and from an order denying a motion for leave to amend the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal stated as the grounds thereof, “ that the amount of the claim for which judgment was demanded by *256the plaintiffs in their pleadings in this court exceeded fifty dollars, and a new trial is hereby demanded, according to the provisions of section 352 of the Code; that the judgment was against law and evidence. The appellants claim that the said judgment ought to have been in their favor for fifty-two dollars, with interest thereon from December 20th, 1876, with costs.”

*Qeorge E.*King, for the appellants.

*Joseph Oarson,*for the respondent.

DykMAN, J.:

The statute providing for an appeal from courts of justices of the peace to the county courts requires the appellant to serve a notice of appeal, stating the grounds upon which the appeal is founded. (Code of Procedure, § 353.) If this requirement of the statute is to answer any good purpose, it is entirely obvious that it should be fully complied with, and that the grounds stated should be specific and explicit. To say in general terms that the judgment is against the testimony, and contrary to law, assigns no specific error, and states no ground for reversal. It is no more than saying the judgment is wrong, which is clearly insufficient. In this case the notice of appeal states that the. judgment was against law and evidence. This is too vague and general, and presents no point for review. Without noticing the other errors and irregularities, this is sufficient to justify the order of the County Court dismissing the appeal. There was a cross motion for leave to amend the notice of appeal; but such a motion could not be granted, for the reason that the original notice was entirely insufficient, and there was nothing to amend. The notice of appeal is the only thing giving jurisdiction to the appellate court, and that being so defective as not to accomplish its object, it cannot be amended.

The orders appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

BarNard, P. J., and Gilbert, J., concurred.

Orders affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
96th Congress, 2d Session House Document No. 96-362

VETO OF H.R. 7102

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

AX ACT TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO

PROMOTE THE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF PHYSICIANS, DENTISTS, NURSES. AND OTHER HEALTH-CARE

PERSONNEL IN THE DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY OF THE VETERANS’ ADMINISTRATION, AND FOR

A ugust 25,1980.—Message and accompanying act ordered to be printed

VETOING

H.R. 7102

OTHER PURPOSES

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1980

82-088 O— 81----- 1 (Pt. 1) BLR
To the House of Representatives:

I am returning without my signature H.R. 7102, the Veterans 

Administration Health Care Amendments of 1980, because this bill 

would provide $80 million a year to Veterans Administration (“VA”) 

physicians in unwarranted salary bonuses rather than target that 

amount on veterans themselves.

As President, I have worked with the VA to ensure that the health 

care provided to our veterans is the finest in the world. Toward that 

goal, during the last three years, I have supported and signed legislation to expand and improve the treatment of all veterans who need 

to receive care from the Veterans Administration. Clearly, much more 

remains to be done for our veterans, and it is essential that we direct 

additional funds to those most in need.

What is not essential, and what does not further our goal of directly 

helping sick and disabled veterans, is spending a large sum of money 

fo give VA physicians currently earning an average of $55,000 a year 

up to 38 percent bonuses, making them by far the highest paid medical 

personnel in the entire government. Indeed, so generous are the bonuses 

provided in this bill that mid-career VA physicians could earn 30 

percent more ($76,200 versus $58,700) than the maximum authorized 

annual salary for Armed Forces physicians. The Defense Department 

lias recommended a veto of this bill because this differential in pay 

may adversely affect its ability to solve the current physician recruitment and retention problems in the military.

I am concerned about attracting and retaining excellent VA physicians. But the current salary and benefits are more than sufficient to 

do that. At the same time, the current level of health care is not, in 

all areas, sufficient. Therefore, rather than spend $80 million on unneeded bonuses for a relatively few physicians, I would prefer that 

the Congress target funds more directly on improving health care 

benefits and treatment for veterans.

I therefore urge the Congress to pass a bill which meets the other 

goals of H.R. 7102, including the Veterans Administration real and 

specific needs for certain physician specialists, while providing—from 

the money that w^ould have been projected for excessive bonuses— 

for improved health care treatment of veterans.

J immy Carter.

T he W hite H ouse, August 22, 1980.

(i)
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2124 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:12:26 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2124 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:12:26 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2124 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:12:26 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2124 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:12:26 Page 4 of

4
#### Frank F. Stevens, Appellant, v. Charles S. Butler and another, Respondents.

— Judgment affirmed, on the opinion of Haight. J., in the former case, *(Laing*v. *Butler,*reported *ante.*p. 144.)
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. FREDERICK S. HEISER, Executor, etc., Relator, *v.*THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS, Respondents.

*Where assessors have completed the roll and sent it to another hoard*— *the roll cannot he corrected hy means of a writ of certiorari issued to the*assessors.

Writ of *certiorari*to review proceedings in relation to an award for a change of grade of Eighth avenue in New York.

*408The court at General Term said : “This proceeding is one to review the action of the respondents, in awarding damages to the relator and executor of the last will and testament of Christina E. Smith, deceased; but it appears that the respondents, who constitute a board of assessors, had concluded their labors in regard to the subject and had transmitted to the board of revision and correction the assessment list; and, further, that the statement of awards had been filed in the finance department before the writ herein was issued. There is, therefore, nothing before the board of assessors, and the relator’s remedy is not by this mode of procedure. The office of a *certiorari*accomplishes nothing under such circumstances. The assessment-roll is not in their possession or under the control of the respondents, and this court, as said in the case of *The People ex rel. Raplee*v. *Reddy*(43 Barb., 539) cannot, therefore, “render any judgment that can aifect the assessment-roll, or correct any errors, although it is satisfied that there was error in the proceedings.” See, also, *People ex rel. Buffalo R. R.*v. *Fredericks*(48 Barb., 173), and cases cited. The case referred to by the relator, in response, apparently, to this view *(vide The People ex rel. O. V. Rat. Bk.*v. *Supervisors of Mad. Go.,*51 N. Y., 442) is one in which a - valid claim was presented to the board of supervisors and they rejected it. The court held that on *.certiorari*they could reverse the action of the board, leaving the relator to a further remedy to enforce payment. It must be borne in mind, however, that the control of the claim had not passed away from the board of supervisors, which in regard to it was an existing authority. Such is not the case when the assessors having completed the roll transfer it to another body for revision and correction. Their functions have ceased.”

*II. M. Whitehead,*for the relator. *Hugh L. Oole,*for the respondents.

Opinion by

Beady, J.,

Davis, P. J., and ING-alls, J., concurred.

Writ dismissed.
#### Annie Grasso, as Administratrix, etc., of Michael Grasso, Deceased, Respondent, v. John B. Rose Company, Appellant.

Motion denied, without costs.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Hirsehberg, Burr, Thomas and Carr, JJ.