alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 30855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13229]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLCAD01000 L12200000.AL 0000]


Meeting of the California Desert District Advisory Council

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, in accordance with Public Laws 92-463 
and 94-579, that the California Desert District Advisory Council to the 
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, will 
participate in a field tour of BLM-administered public lands on Friday, 
June 18, 2010, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and will meet in formal session 
on Saturday, June 19, 2010, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Heritage 
Inn and Suites, 1050 N. Norma St., Ridgecrest, California.
    Agenda topics will include updates by Council members and reports 
from the BLM District Manager and five field office managers. Final 
agenda items, including details of the field tour, will be posted on 
the BLM California state Web site at http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/rac/dac.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All Desert District Advisory Council 
meetings are open to the public. Public comment for items not on the 
agenda will be scheduled at the beginning of the meeting Saturday 
morning. Time for public comment may be made available by the Council 
Chairman during the presentation of various agenda items, and is 
scheduled at the end of the meeting for topics not on the agenda.
    While the Saturday meeting is tentatively scheduled from 8 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m., the meeting could conclude prior to 4:30 p.m. should the 
Council conclude its presentations and discussions. Therefore, members 
of the public interested in a particular agenda item or discussion 
should schedule their arrival accordingly. Written comments may be 
filed in advance of the meeting for the California Desert District 
Advisory Council, c/o Bureau of Land Management, External Affairs, 
22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, California 92553. 
Written comments also are accepted at the time of the meeting and, if 
copies are provided to the recorder, will be incorporated into the 
minutes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Briery, BLM California Desert 
District External Affairs, (951) 697-5220.

    Dated: May 26, 2010.
Teresa A. Raml,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 2010-13229 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350
CERTIFICATIONS  This Certificate is being
delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail
Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be
deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1934, as
amended.  The undersigned, who are
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Behringer Harvard
Multifamily REIT I, Inc. (the Company), each hereby certify as follows:  The Annual Report on Form 10-K
of the Company (the Report), which accompanies this Certificate, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.   Dated this 31stday of March,
  2010.
  /s/ Robert S. AisnerRobert S. AisnerChief Executive Officer/s/ Howard S. GarfieldHoward S. GarfieldChief Financial Officer
#### LAINO *v.*NEW YORK.

No. 992.

Decided June 10, 1963.

*Edward H. Levine*and *Vernon.C. Rossner*for appellant.

*Louis J. Lefkowitz,*Attorney General of New,York, and *Robert E. Fischer*and *Maxwell B.Spoont,*Special Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and. the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of. certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Exhibit  32.1





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 Atlas Oil and Gas Inc. on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dan Motsinger, Chief Executive
Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:





(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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/  Dan
      MotsingerDan
      MotsingerCEO





Date:
April 10, 2009
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 26, 2016

No. 04-16-00076-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.D.R., A CHILD,

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-PA-02916

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee's motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is 

extended to May 31, 2016.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of May, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3144 Filed: 07/23/19 Entered: 07/23/19 09:18:35 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3144 Filed: 07/23/19 Entered: 07/23/19 09:18:35 Page 2 of

3
(;+,%,7$

1RWLFH3DUWLHV6HUYLFH/LVW

6HUYHGDVVHWIRUWKEHORZ

^Z/Wd/KE ED EKd/ED Z^^ D/>

ŽƵŶƐĞůƚŽĞďƚŽƌƐ tĞŝů͕'ŽƚƐŚĂůΘDĂŶŐĞƐ>>W

ƚƚŶ͗^ƚĞƉŚĞŶ<ĂƌŽƚŬŝŶ͕:ĞƐƐŝĐĂ>ŝŽƵ͕DĂƚƚŚĞǁ'ŽƌĞŶ

ϳςϳ&ŝĨƚŚǀĞŶƵĞEĞǁzŽƌŬ͕EzϭϬϭρϯͲϬϭϭε

ƐƚĞƉŚĞŶ͘ŬĂƌŽƚŬŝŶΛǁĞŝů͘ũĞƐƐŝĐĂ͘ůŝŽƵΛǁĞŝů͘ĐŽŵŵĂƚƚŚĞǁ͘ŐŽƌĞŶΛǁĞŝů͘Đ

ŽƵŶƐĞůƚŽĞďƚŽƌƐ <ĞůůĞƌΘĞŶǀĞŶƵƚƚŝ>>W ƚƚŶ͗dŽďŝĂƐ<ĞůůĞƌ͕:ĂŶĞ<ŝŵ

ςρϬĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϭεϬϬ

^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕εκϭϬΘ

ƚŬĞůůĞƌΛŬĞůůĞƌďĞŶǀĞŶƵƚũŬŝŵΛŬĞůůĞƌďĞŶǀĞŶƵƚƚŝ

ĞďƚŽƌƐ

W'ΘŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚWĂĐŝĨŝĐ'ĂƐĂŶĚůĞĐƚƌŝĐŽŵƉĂŶLJ ƚƚŶ͗:ĂŶĞƚ>ŽĚƵĐĂ

ϳϳĞĂůĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚW͘K͘ŽdžϳϳϬϬϬϬ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕εκϭϬρ 

KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨƚŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐdƌƵƐƚĞĞ KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨƚŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐdƌƵƐƚĞĞ

ƚƚŶ͗:ĂŵĞƐ>͘^ŶLJĚĞƌ͕ƐƋ͘ΘdŝŵŽƚŚLJ>ĂĨƌĞĚĚŝ͕ƐƋ

κρϬ'ŽůĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞǀĞŶƵĞρƚŚ&ůŽŽƌ͕^ƵŝƚĞηϬρͲϬϭρϯ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕εκϭϬϮ

:ĂŵĞƐ͘>͘^ŶLJĚĞƌΛƵƐĚŽũ͘ƚŝŵŽƚŚLJ͘Ɛ͘ůĂĨĨƌĞĚŝΛƵƐĚŽ

ŽƵŶƐĞůĨŽƌƚŚĞKĨĨŝĐŝĂůŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞŽĨhŶƐĞĐƵƌĞĚƌĞĚŝƚŽƌƐ DŝůďĂŶŬ>>W

ƚƚŶ͗ĞŶŶŝƐ&͘ƵŶŶĞ͕^ĂŵƵĞů͘<ŚĂůŝů

ρρ,ƵĚƐŽŶzĂƌĚƐEĞǁzŽƌŬ͕EzϭϬϬϬϭͲϮϭςϯ

ĚĚƵŶŶĞΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵƐŬŚĂůŝůΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵ 

ŽƵŶƐĞůĨŽƌƚŚĞKĨĨŝĐŝĂůŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞŽĨhŶƐĞĐƵƌĞĚƌĞĚŝƚŽƌƐ DŝůďĂŶŬ>>W

ƚƚŶ͗WĂƵů^͘ƌŽŶnjŽŶ͕'ƌĞŐŽƌLJ͘ƌĂLJ͕dŚŽŵĂƐZ͘<ƌĞůůĞƌ

ϮϬϮεĞŶƚƵƌLJWĂƌŬ͕ϯϯƌĚ&ůŽŽƌ>ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ͕εϬϬςϳ

WĂƌŽŶnjŽŶΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵ'ďƌĂLJΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵd<ƌĞůůĞƌΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵ 

&ĞĞdžĂŵŝŶĞƌ ƚƚŶ͗ƌƵĐĞ͘DĂƌŬĞůů

ρκϭE͘&ĂŝƌďĂŶŬƐŽƵƌƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϮϮϬϬŚŝĐĂŐŽ͕/>εϬϬςϳ

ďĂŵĞdžĂŵƉŐĞΛŐŵĂŝů͘ƉŐĞΛůĞŐĂůĚĞĐŽĚĞƌ͘ĐŽƚƌĂĐĞLJƌŐĂůůĞŐŽƐΛŐŵĂ

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3144 Filed: 07/23/19 Entered: 07/23/19 09:18:35 Page 

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 389 Filed: 02/08/19 Entered: 02/08/19 15:20:44 Page 1 of 4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 389 Filed: 02/08/19 Entered: 02/08/19 15:20:44 Page 2 of 4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 389 Filed: 02/08/19 Entered: 02/08/19 15:20:44 Page 3 of 4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 389 Filed: 02/08/19 Entered: 02/08/19 15:20:44 Page 4 of 4
July 24 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CONNIE SUSAN WALSH , Appellant
NO. 14

- 10

- 00629

- CV V.
JAMES HENRY WALSH , Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the final divorce dec ree, signed April 14, 2010, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the decree and find no error in the decree . We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant, Connie Susan Walsh, to pay all costs in this appeal . We further order the decision certified below for observance.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10469

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE DAVALOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:96-CR-10-2

- - - - - - - - - -

August 19, 1998

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Eduardo Davalos, prisoner # 28251-077, has filed a

motion for appointment of counsel to appeal the district court’s

denial of his motion for new trial and his motion for

reconsideration of the order denying his motion for new trial. 

Davalos has failed to show that the evidence on which he relies

for a new trial is “newly discovered” and was unknown to him at

the time of trial. See United States v. Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920,

924 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, the district court did not abuse

its discretion in denying his motion for new trial or his motion 
No. 98-10469

-2-

for reconsideration of that denial. See United States v. Time,

21 F.3d 635, 642-43 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Davalos cannot make a showing of a nonfrivolous issue for

appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). 

Accordingly, his appeal is dismissed and his motion for

appointment of counsel is denied. See United States v. Boutwell,

896 F.2d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 1990) (one-judge order); 5th Cir. R.

42.2. 

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of New England Realty Associates LimitedPartnership for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), RonaldBrown, as President and  Director of thePartnership’s General Partner, NewReal, Inc., and Harold Brown, the Treasurerand a Director of the Partnership’s General Partner, NewReal, Inc., eachhereby certifies, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 
|               | /s/ RONALD BROWN                                   |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|               |                                               |
|               | Ronald Brown                                       |
|               | Principal Executive Officer                        |
|               | (President and Director of the                     |
|               | Partnership’s General Partner, NewReal, Inc.) |
| Date: May 10, 2010 |                                               |
|               | /s/ Harold Brown                                   |
|               |                                               |
|               | Harold Brown                                       |
|               | Principal Financial Officer                        |
|               | (Treasurer and Director of the                     |
|               | Partnership’s General Partner, NewReal, Inc.) |
| Date: May 10, 2010 |                                               |

 

 

This certificationaccompanies each Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of §18 of the Security ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended.A signed original of this written statement required by§906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by thePartnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

1

----
#### GREENLEAF K. SHERIDAN as Executor, etc., of FREDERICK H. JACKSON, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*JULIA R. HOUGHTON and others, Respondents.

*Attorney*— when *not privileged from, testifying,*

Appeal from a decree of the surrogate of the county of Now York, establishing a will of David S. Jackson, which was alleged to have been lost or destroyed after his death.,

The execution of the will of the alleged testator was shown. It was clearly shown, also, that the will existed at the time of the testator’s decease; that it was found in his office and read in the presence of his family, and then delivered to one of his sons, David S. Jackson, Jr. It had never been presented for probate, nor was it produced, nor was any account given of the disposition made of it by David S. Jackson, Jr., who was shown to be deceased.

The court at General Term, after directing a new hearing before the surrogate for failure to comply with the statute, proceeded: “It appears by the papers that the attorney by whom the will was drawn suffered himself to be retained on the part of the heirs who opposed the probate of the will, and refused to answer proper questions put to him upon the trial, upon the ground that he was not at libei’ty, having been counsel for the testator, to disclose what ho chose to consider confidential communications. The surrogate did not see fit to require him to testify to such ' facts in relation to the preparation and the contents of the will, in respect of which he was not only competent but bound to testify. A failure of justice must not be permitted on any such *629pretext, and we tbink, upon a new trial, there will be no difficulty in developing suck facts as will prevent the failure of clearly manifest justice in this case.”

*J. 8. Lawrence,*for the appellant.

*JE. Luther*Hamilton, for the respondents.

Opinion

*Per Ouriam :*

Present — Davis, P. J., Beady and INGalls, JJ.

Decree reversed; proceedings remitted to the surrogate, with directions to proceed with the bearing of tbe case, without costs to either party on appeal.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ex parte Thomas Aven Cole

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00107

- CR

Trial court case number: 2005582

Trial court: Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 10 of Harris Count y

The clerk’s record has been filed in this appeal. We have not yet received a court

reporter’s record. It is unknown whether the reporter’s record has been requested by Appellant.

The clerk’s record is lacking any filings by the State of Texas in resp onse to the briefing of

appellant on his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Likewise, nothing in the current record

explains the underlying extradition proceedings, what the charges against appellant are, or

where.

Therefore, t he Court REQUESTS briefing from the parties. The brief of Appellant is

due on or before February 23, 2015. The response of the State is due within 14 days of the date

appellant’s brief is filed.

We note that if appellant has requested the reporter’s record, it is due to be filed b y

February 13, 2015, which is 15 days from the date the Notice of Appeal was filed. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 31.1 The court reporter is ORDERED to either file the record by February 13, 2015, or

inform us by that date if the record has not been requested or paid for by appellant, if he is not

indigent.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 6, 2015
CARTER HAYNES, JR.

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3904

_____ ________________________/

Opinion filed October 14, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County

. Wi lliam W. Blue, Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pat e , Bureau Chief, Jillian H. Reding, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL

, ROWE

, and RAY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. AF 07-0016

______________ IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE ) NEW RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE ) O R D E R

______________ On January 10, 2007, we issued our Or der for a public comment period in this matter. The public comment period was to end at 5:00 p.m. on March 30, 2007. However, inasmuch as the proposed revisions to the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure will not be noticed in The Montana Lawyer until the publication of the March 2007 issue, we conclude that it is approp riate that we extend the comment period. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the public comment period referre d to in our January 10, 2007, Order is extended from March 30, 2007, to 5:00 p. m. April 16, 2007 . Each person submitting comments shall file an original and 7 copies of his or her comments with the Clerk of this Court wi thin the time provided. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order with the attached Word and PDF document links be electronically publ ished on the State Bar of Montana website, http://www.montanabar.org , and on the website for the Judicial Branch, http://www.courts.mt.gov , and that a copy of this Order be published in th e next available issue of The Montana Lawyer

. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of this Order be served by electronic transmission to: the Executive Director of the State Bar of Montana; the editor of The Montana Lawyer ; the State Law Librarian; the C ode Commissioner for the State of Montana; the Clerks of the District Courts; th e District Court Judges; the President of the Montana Judges’ Association; and the Pr esident of the Mont ana Magistrates’ Association.

1Dated this 27 th day of February, 2007.

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY /S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ JOHN WARNER /S/ JIM RICE /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART /S/ BRIAN MORRIS

2
#### PEOPLES BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Guardian and Administrator of W. L. GROOM, v. TAR RIVER LUMBER COMPANY, a Corporation.

(Filed 22 March, 1944.)

Appeal and Error § 37e—

On an appeal from the denial of a motion to set aside an order allowing a claim of a creditor against a corporation in the hands of a receiver, where it appears that the judgment on the motion below was based on numerous findings of fact, which in some instances are not supported by-evidence and some of which are not in accord with the record, the judgment will be vacated and the cause remanded for further consideration.

Barnhill, J., dissents.

Appeal by movant S. T. Anderson from *Williams, J.,*at May Term, 1943, of Nash.

Motion in the cause by S. T. Anderson was denied, and he appealed.

*John F. Matthews and G. M. Beam for movant, appellant.*

*F. S. Spruill for defendants, appellees.*

Per Curiam.

The movant S. T. Anderson, a creditor of the defendant, Tar River Lumber Company, moved to set aside so much of an order *154heretofore entered in the receivership of the defendant Lumber Company as allowed the claim of the *W.*L. Groom estate, on the ground that the order in this respect was irregular. Questions relating to the receivership of defendant Lumber Company, in so far as they involved the dis-allowance of the Hanes claim, were considered by this Court at Spring Term, 1942 (221 N. C., 89). The movant S. T. Anderson alleges that the Groom claim was invalid, was improperly allowed, and that this claim is so large that if the allowance stands movant’s claim cannot be paid in full.

The matter was heard below and judgment rendered denying the motion. This ruling was based on numerous findings of fact. Upon examination of these, however, it appears that in some instances supporting evidence is' lacking, or the finding is not in accord with the record. Questions arise whether the receivers and the Groom estate are jointly resisting the motion; whether the movant’s evidence does not show a meritorious defense to the Groom claim; whether the affidavit of *the*former attorney of movant was considered against him by the court *(Guy v. Bank,*206 N. C., 322, 173 S. E., 600); whether the alleged agreement between movant and the representatives of the Groom estate was approved by the Court, and whether such an agreement was available to the receivers in support of the validity of the Groom claim, and as a defense to Anderson’s motion.

Under the circumstances, we think the judgment appealed from should be vacated and the cause remanded to the Superior Court for further consideration of the matters involved in Anderson’s motion, and it is so ordered.

Error and remanded.

BabNhill, J., dissents.
No. 871.

No. 878.

No. 844, Misc.

No. 857, Misc.

#### Progress Development Corp. *v.*Deerfield Park District, Foreman et ux. *v.*City of Bellefontaine, Bent *v.*United States, Spampinato *v.*City of New York et al.,

372 U. S. 968;

373 U. S.63;

373 U. S. 917; and

372 U. S. 980. Petitions for rehearing denied.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4129 Filed: 10/03/19 Entered: 10/04/19 12:34:16 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4129 Filed: 10/03/19 Entered: 10/04/19 12:34:16 Page 2 of

2
#### Fry *v.*Spatz, Appellant.

*Appeals*— Certiorari—Justice *of the peace.*

Where on an appeal from.a judgment of the common pleas affirming a judgment of a justice of the peace brought before the common pleas by certiorari, the record shows jurisdiction in the justice and a proper service of process upon the defendant the appeal to the Superior Court will be quashed. The judgment of the common pleas in such a case is final.

*593Argued Nov. 14, 1905.

Appeal, No. 171, Oct. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., March T., 1905, No. 30, affirming judgment of justice of the peace in case of John H. Fry v. I. S. Spatz & I. H. Lebo, trading as Spatz & Lebo.

Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlady, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ.

Appeal quashed.

Certiorari to justice of the peace. Before Landis, P. J.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

*Error assigned*was the judgment of the court.

*B. F.*Davis, for appellant.

*John K.*Fry, for appellee.

December 10, 1905:

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the judgment of the common pleas affirming the judgment of a justice of the peace, which was brought before that court by certiorari. The record shows that the cause of action was within the jurisdiction conferred upon justices of the peace by the act of 1810, and th'e return of the constable shows on its face a valid service of the summons upon the defendant. By the express terms of the 22d section of the act of 1810, the judgment of the common pleas in such a case, when brought before it bjr certiorari, is final. So far as the right to appeal to this court is concerned, the case is not distinguishable from Phœnix Iron Works Company v. Mullen, 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 547, in which the authorities bearing upon the question are collected.

The appeal is quashed at the appellant’s cost.
#### In the Matter of Dudley Road Association et al., Appellants, v Adirondack Park Agency et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.) (And a Similar Proceeding.)

Submitted December 18, 1995;

decided February 15, 1996

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the denial of *953petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction, dismissed upon the ground that that portion of the order does not finally determine the proceedings within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.