alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 32418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13647]



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



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE



Department of the Navy




Meeting of the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel



AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.



ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.



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



SUMMARY: The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Executive Panel will 

report on the findings and recommendations of ``The Navy's Future Role 

in the Middle East'' Subcommittee to the Chief of Naval Operations. The 

meeting will consist of discussions of current and future Navy 

strategy; plans, and policies in support of U.S. deterrence planning; 

crisis management; and conflict escalation and control.



DATES: The meeting will be held on June 28, 2010, from 1:30 p.m. to 4 

p.m.



ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Boardroom at CNA, 4825 Mark 

Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846.



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CDR Eric Taylor, CNO Executive Panel, 

4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846, 703-681-4909.



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), these matters 

constitute classified information that are specifically authorized by 

Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense 

and are, in fact, properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order. 

Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that 

the public interest requires that all sessions of this meeting be 

closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed 

in section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code.

    Individuals or interested groups may submit written statements for 

consideration by the CNO Executive Panel at any time or in response to 

the agenda of a scheduled meeting. All requests must be submitted to 

the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed below.

    If the written statement is in response to the agenda mentioned in 

this meeting notice then the statement, if it is to be considered by 

the Panel for this meeting, must be received at least five days prior 

to the meeting in question.

    The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions 

with the CNO Executive Panel Chairperson, and ensure they are provided 

to members of the CNO Executive Panel before the meeting that is the 

subject of this notice.

    To contact the Designated Federal Officer, write to Executive 

Director, CNO Executive Panel (N00K), 4825 Mark Center Drive, 2nd 

Floor, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846.



    Dated: June 2, 2010.

A.M. Vallandingham,

Lieutenant Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-13647 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

948 

TP 15-00352 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ALEX SHOGA, PETITIONER, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK 

STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT. 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PETER H. SCHIFF OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Michael M.

Mohun, A.J.], entered February 27, 2015) to review a determination of

respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that

petitioner had violated various inmate rules. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously

annulled on the law without costs, the amended petition is granted in

part and the matter is remitted to respondent for further proceedings

in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner commenced

this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination,

following a tier III disciplinary hearing, finding him guilty of

violating various inmate rules. Although we conclude that the

determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of

Spears v Fischer, 103 AD3d 1135, 1136), respondent correctly concedes

that the determination must be annulled and remitted for a new

hearing. The disciplinary hearing was adjourned pending the

availability of additional witnesses and, when the hearing was

reconvened, the Hearing Officer stated on the record that petitioner

had been verbally inappropriate and abusive during the adjournment and

that she was therefore excluding him from the remainder of the

proceeding. The record, however, does not establish what petitioner’s

conduct was during the adjournment, and thus we are unable to

determine whether the Hearing Officer properly excluded petitioner

from the remainder of the hearing. The statements made during the

adjournment were not recorded, and the Hearing Officer merely stated

in a conclusory manner on the record that petitioner was verbally

inappropriate and abusive, without specifying what petitioner said to

her. We therefore conclude that the determination must be annulled,
-2- 948 

TP 15-00352 

and we remit the matter to respondent for a new hearing (see generally

Matter of Nova v Fischer, 112 AD3d 1234, 1234, lv denied 22 NY3d 866;

Matter of Barnes v Fischer, 108 AD3d 990, 990-991, lv denied 22 NY3d

855). Because we are remitting the matter for a new hearing rather

than granting all of the relief sought in the amended petition, i.e.,

expungement of the charges, we are granting the amended petition only

in part.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and

conclude that they are without merit. 

Entered: October 9, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5305 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to treat Puerto Rico as 

a State for purposes of chapter 9 of such title relating to the adjustment 

of debts of municipalities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2014 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to treat Puerto 

Rico as a State for purposes of chapter 9 of such title 

relating to the adjustment of debts of municipalities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Puerto Rico Chapter 

5 9 Uniformity Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

7 Section 101(52) of title 11, United States Code, is 

8 amended to read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 5305 IH

1 ‘‘(52) The term ‘State’ includes Puerto Rico 

2 and, except for the purpose of defining who may be 

3 a debtor under chapter 9 of this title, includes the 

4 District of Columbia.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Wilshire Credit Corporation**[Wilshire Logo]****Exhibit T Payments P.O. Box 105344; Atlanta, GA 30348-5344 or P.O. Box 7195: Pasadena, CA91109-7195 Correspondence P.O. Box 8517: Portland, OR 97207-8517 Phone March 12, 2005 (503) 952-7947 (888) 502-0100 ******Fax**(503) 952-7476 Web Site www.wcc.ml.com  US Bank - Corporate Trust Services EP-MN-WS3D 60 Livingston Ave St. Paul. MN 55107-1419 Attn: Diane Reynolds Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc 250 Vesey Street 4 World Financial Center, 10th Floor New York, NY 10080 Attn: Ketan Parekh Re:  Annual Officer's Certificate (Wilshire Pool 1414) Pooling & Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of January 1, 2007 between Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., Depositor, Wilshire Credit Corporation, Servicer,  and U.S. Bank National Association, Trustee for the Specialty Underwriting and Residential Finance Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-BC1. I, Ken Frye, Senior Vice President, Loan Servicing of Wilshire Credit Corporation (the "Servicer"), hereby certify that: i.A review of the activities of the Servicer during such preceding calendar year and of the performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision, and ii.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year or a portion thereof. Wilshire Credit Corporation, as Servicer Certified By: /s/ Ken Frye Name: Ken Frye Title: Senior Vice President, Loan Servicing
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5263 Filed: 01/03/20 Entered: 01/03/20 16:22:22 Page 1 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5263 Filed: 01/03/20 Entered: 01/03/20 16:22:22 Page 2 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5263 Filed: 01/03/20 Entered: 01/03/20 16:22:22 Page 3 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5263 Filed: 01/03/20 Entered: 01/03/20 16:22:22 Page 4 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5263 Filed: 01/03/20 Entered: 01/03/20 16:22:22 Page 5 of

5
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Ronorrbla John 3. Prltobott, Yomkr 

Bonrd of Vata? Bnn(iw*rr 

MJstln, Teur 

Dbrr Sir: 

Toti reqo*r$ for 

r*o.i+wl br thir offioo. 

the third doyoo br oonuguinlt~ to the prron 

DO rp olntln(l or 80 vot%ng or to any other ~abet of maoh Mud, tbo La haturn, or aour of 

whlrh ruoh puma l o l pp0 Ll tin& Or VOtily Or? b. 

l me-r , wh o a the l alorl, fooa, or oomponrltloa 

o f rool h ppolntea ia 80 bo pal0 for, blroot4 or 

lldlrbrtl~, out of or from p&lie fun& or foor 

of oftlor of l y kind or ohrwter whaUo@vu.~
#### Gustave Schloper, Plaintiff, *v. “*Louis” Abramowitz and Others, Defendants.

City Court of New York, Bronx County,

November 5, 1936.

*Jesse Luxenberg,*for the plaintiff.

*Daniel Mungall,*for the defendants.

Schackno, J.

Plaintiff seeks to examine before trial a person who is not a party to the action. The right to examine a witness before trial, and the right to examine a party before trial, depend upon entirely different grounds. An examination before trial of a witness is not granted with the same freedom as the examination of a party. To justify taking the deposition of a person not a party to the action who is not about to depart from the State, is not without the State, does not reside more than one hundred miles from the place of trial and is not so sick or infirm as to afford reasonable ground of belief that he will not be able to attend a trial, it must be made to appear that “ other special circumstances *”*render it proper that his deposition should be taken. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 288.) The term “ other special circumstances ” has been held to refer ordinarily to circumstances such as will make the presence and evidence of the witness at the trial doubtful and uncertain, and relate to his or her personal condition and purpose as bearing upon the probability of his future attendance at the trial. *(Town of Hancock*v. *First National Bank,*93 N. Y. 82, 86.) Such circumstance is not presented here. It is contended that the fact that the *310attorney for the defendant arranged for a dental examination of the plaintiff by the person whom plaintiff seeks to examine before trial is a special circumstance; I hold otherwise; in my opinion it is a very ordinary circumstance. The further contention that the witness proposed to be examined before trial may be hostile or unwilling, is not sufficient ground for granting this motion, as it is not suggested that there is anything in his relations with defendants which would induce him to swear falsely as a witness.' Motion denied.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

#71009905_v1 1 

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

Thomas D. Leland (Pro Hac) 

Leah E. Capritta (Pro Hac) 

1801 California Street, Suite 5000 

Denver, Colorado 80202 

Telephone: (303) 974-6660 

Fax: (303) 974-6659 

Email: thomas.leland@hklaw.com 

leah.capritta@hklaw.com 

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

Vince Farhat (SBN 183794) 

400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone: (213) 896-2400 

Facsimile: (213) 896-2450 

Email: vince.farhat@hklaw.com 

Attorneys for 

UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

 Debtor. 

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

CASE NO. 19-30089 (DM)

Chapter 11 

UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC’S 

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RELIEF 

FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY

Date: November 13, 2019 

Time: 10:00 AM 

Judge: Hon. Dennis Montali 

Ctrm: 17 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on November 13, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon 

thereafter as the matter may be heard before the Honorable Dennis of United States Bankruptcy 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 1 of

3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

#71009905_v1 2 

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

Court, Northern District of California located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, 

California, 16th Floor, Courtroom 17, United Energy Trading, LLC (“UET”), will and hereby 

does move the Court for relief from the automatic stay. 

DATED: October 18, 2019 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

By: /s/ Leah E. Capritta 

 Leah E. Capritta 

 Attorneys for United Energy Trading, LLC

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 2 of

3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

#71009905_v1 3 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4323 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 19:20:23 Page 3 of NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY 3
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF 

G.A., J.A., A.S., J.S., And J.S., 

Children.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00187-CV

Appeal from the

65th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2021DCM6989)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court are three motions to dismiss this appeal of a final judgment 

terminating the parental rights to minor children, G.A., J.A., A.S., J.S., and J.S. Appellant J.M. 

filed his motion to dismiss on September 6, 2023, while Appellant M.A. and Appellant A.S. filed 

their separate motions to dismiss on October 19, 2023. 

In each motion, appellants individually state they no longer wish to pursue their appeal.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1) (the Court may dismiss an appeal in accordance with a motion of 

appellant). Accordingly, as we have not yet issued an opinion in this case, we grant each parties’ 

motion and dismiss each appeal pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

October 25, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John J. O’Melia, Appellant.

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Mem. by

Herrick, J
|   | i. | The      Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the fiscal year ended      December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange      Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | ii. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | April 22, 2010                                                                              |   | By: | /s/ MARK NOFFKE |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----|-----------------|
|   | Name:  Mark      NoffkeTitle:    Chief      Financial Officer |

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT C 

EXPENSE SUMMARY 

FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 1, 2019 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2019 

EXPENSES AMOUNTS 

Meals $3,855.30 

Transportation 6,609.78 

Courier/Mail Services 4,425.68 

Duplicating 4,229.45 

Special Disbursements (including Experts) 1,011,801.38 

Travel 134,016.70* 

Total Expenses Requested: $1,164,938.29 

* - Hotel expenses have been capped for reimbursement purposes at $600.00/night. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4764-3 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 14:15:36 Page 1

of 1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-41507 Summary Calendar

WILLIAM HALL, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JERRY PETERSON, Deputy Director; GARY J. GOMEZ, Director; DOYLE MCELVANEY, Warden; ENRIQUE FRANCO; GERNARDO RODRIGUEZ, JR.; CURTIS N. WALTON, Lieutenant; ROGELIO G. MARTINEZ; BARBARA A. EASTMAN, Correctional Officer III, Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-97-CV-711

--------------------- May 31, 2000 Before GARWOOD, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * William Hall, Jr., Texas prisoner # 267649, appeals the district court’s denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Hall argues that the defendants denied his right of access to the courts, read his legal papers on one occasion, retaliated against him by filing aNo. 99-41507 - 2 - false disciplinary report, and denied him due process at his disciplinary proceeding. As a result of the alleged denial of due process, Hall contends that he was punished and deprived of his liberty, including the loss of 30 days of good-time credits. Hall also requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Hall’s complaint as frivolous. Based on Hall’s factual allegations, he has not established any constitutional claims cognizable under § 1983. See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 351-52 (1996); Clarke v. Stalder , 154 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 1052 (1999); Tighe v. Wall , 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir. 1996); Walker v. Navarro County Jail , 4 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, this appeal is
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. Hall’s motion for permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED as moot. The district court’s dismissal of Hall’s complaint and this court’s dismissal of his appeal as frivolous count as two “strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Hall is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three “strikes” under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
See § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet and Statement of Operations filed as part of the Report on Form 10-Q and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Report on Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,227
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,568
<ALLOWANCES>                                       560
<INVENTORY>                                      3,429
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,996
<PP&E>                                          33,730
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,558
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,484
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,731
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,320
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,036
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,484
<SALES>                                         24,666
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,666
<CGS>                                           19,574
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,574
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,126
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 412
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,554
<INCOME-TAX>                                       594
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                960
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       960
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
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 Amendment No. 2 tothe Annual Report
of Florham Consulting Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kellis Veach, Chief Financial Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Florham Consulting
Corp. and will be retained by Florham Consulting Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




/s/  Kellis
      VeachKellis
      VeachChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Accounting and Financial
Officer)





July 28,
2010
#### The East River Gas Company of Long Island City, Respondent, v. John F. Ahern, Appellant.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. No opinion.
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*Joseph Hargrove, Appellant, v. Henry G. Johnson and others, Police Commissioners, etc., Respondents.

Order dismissing relator affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.