alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7536

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES VINCENT WELLS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District

Judge. (CR-96-34-BR, CA-00-730-5-BR)

Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 7, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kieran Joseph Shanahan, SHANAHAN LAW GROUP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States

Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James Vincent Wells seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Wells, Nos. CR-96-34-BR; CA00-730-5-BR (E.D.N.C. filed June 8, 2001 & entered June 12, 2001).

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
[No. 24306.

Department Two.

March 6, 1933.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Richard J. Temby, *Appellant.*
      *1*

*Chas. D. Donnelly,*for appellant.

*Robert M. Burgunder*and *Ben A. Maslan,*for respondent.

Reported in 19 P. (2d) 661.

Tolman, J.

Appellant, a licensed sanipractor, was tried and found guilty by a jury upon a charge of practicing surgery without a license. From a judgment and sentence upon the verdict, he has appealed.

[1] In everything relating to the nature of the charge, the evidence offered and the instructions given, this case is in all respects similar to and governed by the case of *State v. Lydon,*170 Wash. 354, 16 P. (2d) 848, recently decided. We do not feel called upon to enter into a re-examination of the questions decided in that case, but are content to follow it. Therefore, this judgment must be affirmed unless some trial error occurred to the prejudice of appellant.

*132[2] The only error here assigned not decided adversely to the appellant by the *Lydon*case, is one .based upon the cross-examination by the state of one of appellant’s witnesses. We have gone to the statement of facts for the full transcript of the direct and cross-examination of this witness, and after a careful study of all that the record reveals, we are satisfied that the cross-examination complained of was wholly proper and justified for the purpose of showing the personal interest of the witness in the outcome of the trial and thus bearing upon the question of his credibility. In all such matters, the trial court has a wide discretion, and here we find nothing at all indicating an abuse of that discretion.

Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.

Beals, C. J., Steinert, Main, and Blake, JJ., concur.
SCPR

- 23

- 0000691

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

IN RE JUNIE HAYASHI , Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN IN GOOD STANDING

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna and Eddins, JJ.

,

and Intermediate Court of Appeals Associate Judges

McCullen and Guidry, assigned by reason of vacancies )

Upon consideration of the petition to resign from the

practice of law in the State of Hawai ʻ i, filed by attorney Junie

Hayashi (Petitioner) , pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of the

Supreme Court of the State of Hawai ʻ i (RSCH), but to retain the

paper license as a memento, as authorized by RSCH 1.10(b), and

the declarations submitted in support thereof, we conclude that

Petitioner has fully complied with the requirements of RSCH

1.10. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition to resign is

granted. Petitioner may retain the paper license as a memento. Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPR-23-0000691

21-DEC-2023

11:00 AM

Dkt. 6 OGP2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to RSCH 1.10(g) that

Petitioner shall comply with the notice, declaration, and record

requirements of RSCH 2.16(a), (b), (d) and (g).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the

name of Petitioner, attorney number 4523 , from the roll of

attorneys of the State of Hawai ʻ i, effective with the filing of

this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, December 21 , 2023.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
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

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119

Exhibit B

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4381-2 Filed: 10/22/19 Entered: 10/22/19 12:46:05 Page 1

of 2
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

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119

Chronology of Emails

• On October 16, 2019, Mr. Botter of the Akin firm wrote to Mr. Tsekerides (counsel to the 

Debtors) that the Ad Hoc Noteholders Committee would like to work with the Debtors and 

other parties on a comprehensive schedule for plan confirmation. He stated that they are 

preparing a proposed schedule and hope to share it in the next few days. 

• On October 18, 2019, Mr. Karotkin inquired as to the promised proposed schedule. Mr. 

Botter’s response on October 19, 2019, “Sorry. Was a very busy week. We are working on 

it.” 

• On October 20, 2019, Mr. Tsekerides asked Mr. Botter for an update as to when we would 

receive the proposed schedule.

• Mr. Botter’s response – we continue to work on it. 

• On October 20, 2019, Mr. Tsekerides emailed Mr. Botter saying “You’ve been stating for 

days you were working on [a schedule] and asked the Court to put off ruling on our request 

[for a briefing schedule] because of it and that you were going to send it. Are you now 

saying you have nothing to share?”

• Mr. Botter’s response – “We are discussing with our co-plan proponents and will get back 

to you shortly.”

• On October 20, 2019, Mr. Karotkin emailed Mr. Botter asking him to please call. 

• Mr. Botter’s response – “Sorry. Cannot at the moment.”

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4381-2 Filed: 10/22/19 Entered: 10/22/19 12:46:05 Page 2

of 2
EX-35.1
(logo) GMAC Mortgage


SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2007-RFC1 (the "Issuing Entity")


The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of GMAC Mortgage, LLC (formerly GMAC
Mortgage Corporation), as servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period covered by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 17th
day of March 2008.


By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name: Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Executive Vice President
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), the undersigned
sole director of S Wind-up Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter year ended September 30, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Periodic
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic
Report and results of operations for the Company for periods covered by the Periodic Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ IRV LICHTENWALDName:

Irv LichtenwaldTitle:

DirectorDated:

May 6, 2005




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to S Wind-up Corporation (the Company) and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request. This
certification accompanies the Form 10-Q/A to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q/A), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5566 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to restore National SMART 

Grants for a certain number of award years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to restore 

National SMART Grants for a certain number of award 

years. 

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 ‘‘SMART Grant Reau5 thorization Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF SMART GRANTS. 

7 Section 401A of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

8 (20 U.S.C. 1070a–1) is amended— 

9 (1) by amending the section heading to read as 

10 follows: ‘‘NATIONAL SMART GRANTS’’; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5566 IH

1 (2) in subsection (b)— 

2 (A) by striking paragraph (1); and 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘this section’’ and all that 

4 follows through ‘‘for the third’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘this section for the third’’; 

6 (3) in subsection (c)(3)— 

7 (A) by striking subparagraphs (A) and 

8 (B); 

9 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) 

10 through (E) as subparagraphs (A) through (C), 

11 respectively; 

12 (C) in subparagraph (A)(i), as so redesig13 nated— 

14 (i) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of sub15 clause (I) and inserting ‘‘and’’; 

16 (ii) by striking ‘‘major in’’ and all 

17 that follows through ‘‘the physical’’ and in18 serting ‘‘major in the physical’’; and 

19 (iii) by striking subclause (II); and 

20 (D) in subparagraph (C)(i), as so redesig21 nated— 

22 (i) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of sub23 clause (I) and inserting ‘‘and’’; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5566 IH

1 (ii) by striking ‘‘major in’’ and all 

2 that follows through ‘‘the physical’’ and in3 serting ‘‘major in the physical’’; and 

4 (iii) by striking subclause (II); 

5 (4) in subsection (d)(1)(A)— 

6 (A) by striking clauses (i) and (ii); 

7 (B) by redesignating clauses (iii) and (iv) 

8 as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively; 

9 (C) in clause (i), as so redesignated, by 

10 striking ‘‘subparagraph (C) or (D)’’ and insert11 ing ‘‘subparagraph (A) or (B)’’; and 

12 (D) in clause (ii), as so redesignated, by 

13 striking ‘‘(E)’’ and inserting ‘‘(C)’’; 

14 (5) by amending subsection (e)(1) to read as 

15 follows: 

16 ‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATION OF

17 FUNDS.—There are authorized to be appropriated, 

18 and there are appropriated, out of any money in the 

19 Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the De20 partment of Education to carry out this section 

21 $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2015 and each of the 

22 5 succeeding fiscal years.’’; 

23 (6) by striking subsection (f); 

24 (7) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub25 section (f); and 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 5566 IH

1 (8) in subsection (f), as so redesignated, by 

2 striking ‘‘2010–2011’’ and inserting ‘‘2020–2021’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 107 (Friday, June 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 31799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13486]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel, Member Conflict: Cardiac Conduction System, Calcium Release 
and Arrhythmia.
    Date: June 9, 2010.
    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Olga A. Tjurmina, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4138, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 
20892. (301) 451-1375. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1e716a2d7a5e70777630797168"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="543b206730143a3d3c7a333b22">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 26, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-13486 Filed 6-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### E. N. Chastain, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Jacob Smith *et al.,*defendants in error.

*The*record or bill of exceptions must disclose the fact that the brief of evidence accompanying the motion for a new trial was approved by the Court, or agreed upon by the parties or their counsel. (R.)

New trial. Brief of evidence. Practice in the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court. January Term, 1873.

When this case was called a motion was made by counsel for defendants to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that there was no evidence of the fact in the record that the brief of evidence on the motion for a new trial had been approved by the Court or agreed upon by the parties. Counsel for plaintiff in error refusing to make tlie necessary affidavit, *474upon a suggestion of a dimunition of the record, the writ of error was dismissed. ■

George D. Rice; J. A. Jervis, for the motion.

"Wier Boyd; H. P. Bell, contra.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 62829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29863]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing; Government 
Owned Inventions

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States 
Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and are 
available for licensing by the Department of the Navy. Requests for 
copies of the patent applications cited should be directed to the 
Office of Naval Research, ONR OOCC, Ballston Tower One, 800 North 
Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 22217- 5660 and must include the 
application serial number or Navy case Number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. R.J. Erickson, Staff Patent 
Attorney, Office of Naval Research, ONR, OOCC, 800 North Quincy Street, 
Arlington, Virginia 22217-5660, telephone (703) 696- 4001.
    Patent Application Serial No. 08/342,451: MOBILE SAFETY STRUCTURE 
FOR CONTAINMENT AND HANDLING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS; filed November 14, 
1994;
    Patent Application Serial No. 08/514/888: AMMUNITION CARTRIDGE WITH 
REDUCED PROPELLANT CHARGE; filed August 14, 1995;
    Patent Application Serial No. 08/514/570: COMBINATION PIN FOR 
ATTACHING TRIGGER ASSEMBLY AND SAFING SMALL ARM: filed August 14, 1995;
    Patent Application Serial No. 08/514,576: SINGLE SPRING BOLT LOCK 
AND CARTRIDGE EJECTOR; filed August 14, 1995;
    Patent Application Serial No. 08/514,573: SPOTTING ROUND BORE 
ALIGNMENT MECHANISM FOR ROCKET LAUNCHER; filed August 14, 1995;
    Patent Application Serial No. 08/514,883: SINGLE TRIGGER DUAL 
FIRING MECHANISM; filed August 14, 1995;
    Patent Application Serial No. 08/514,884: BREECH BOLT AND LOCK 
ASSEMBLY; filed August 14, 1995;
    Patent Application Serial No. 08/514,885: COMBINATION OPTICAL AND 
IRON SIGHT SYSTEM FOR ROCKET LAUNCHER; filed August 14, 1995;
    Design Patent Application Serial No. 29/042,682: IMPROVED SHOULDER-
FIRED WEAPON; filed August 14, 1995;
    Patent Application Serial No. 08/514,575: SHOULDER-LAUNCHED 
MULTIPLE-PURPOSE ASSAULT WEAPON; filed August 14, 1995;
    Patent Application Serial No. 08/375,997: LIQUID CRYSTAL 
COMPOSITION AND ALIGNMENT LAYER; filed January 20, 1995; and
    Patent Application entitled: QUANTITATIVE MOBILITY SPECTRUM 
ANALYSIS OF MAGNETIC FIELD-DEPENDENT HALL AND RESISTIVITY DATA; filed 
October 4, 1995, Navy Case No. 77,263.

    Dated: November 27, 1995.
M. A. Waters,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-29863 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
#### Charles E. Skinner, Appellant, v. Alexander Smith & Sons' Carpet Company and others, Respondents.

—Judgment sustaining demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of New England Realty Associates Limited
Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Ronald Brown, President of NewReal, Inc., Sole General Partner of
the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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, as amended; and

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

By:   /s/ Ronald Brown
    --------------------------
      Ronald Brown
      President of New Real, Inc, Sole General Partner of the Partnership
      August 14, 2002
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 22, 2020

a0415

Order 

Clerk

April 22, 2020

160423

LINDA HOULE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 160423

COA: 348480

Bay CC: 17-003755-AV

EMC DEVELOPMENT and EDWARD M.

CZUPRYNSKI,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 11, 2019 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted.
EXHIBIT
10.26




AMENDMENT
TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This Amendment (this
“Amendment”)
to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated December 30, 2008 between
Greenlight Capital Re, Ltd. (the “Company”),
Greenlight Reinsurance, Ltd. (together with the Company, the “Employer”),
and Tim Courtis (the “Executive”)
(the “Employment
Agreement”) is entered into this 18th day of
February 2009.  Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined
herein shall have the meanings given them in the Employment
Agreement.




RECITALS




Whereas,
the Employer employs the Executive as its Chief Financial Officer pursuant to
the Employment Agreement; and




Whereas,
the parties have determined it to be in their best interests to amend the
Employment Agreement to increase the Executive’s target Bonus opportunity
effective as of January 1, 2009.




Now,Therefore,Be
It Resolved, that in consideration of the mutual premises, covenants and
agreements herein contained, the parties agree as
follows:




Resolved,
effective as of January 1, 2009, the sixth sentence of Section 5(a) of the
Employment Agreement shall be amended to read as
follows:




“Executive
shall be eligible to receive a discretionary Bonus, based on performance goals
established by the Board, with a target of 60% of Base Salary.”




Further
Resolved, that except as otherwise expressly set forth in this Amendment,
all provisions, terms and conditions in the Employment Agreement remain
unmodified and in full force and effect, and the Employment Agreement is hereby
in all respects ratified and confirmed.




Further
Resolved, that this Amendment, together with the Employment Agreement,
sets forth the entire agreement and understanding of the parties relating to the
subject matter herein.  No modification of or amendment to this
Amendment, nor any waiver of any rights under this Amendment, shall be effective
unless given in a writing signed by the party to be
charged.




Further
Resolved, that this Amendment may be executed in duplicate counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which, taken
together, shall constitute one agreement.

















[signature
page follows]












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first written
above.








GREENLIGHT CAPITAL
      RE, LTD.By: /s/ Leonard
      GoldbergName:  Leonard
      GoldbergTitle:
      CEO and Director








GREENLIGHT
      REINSURANCE, LTD.By: /s/ Leonard
      GoldbergName:  Leonard
      GoldbergTitle:  CEO
      and Director
   EXECUTIVE/s/ Tim
      CourtisTim
Courtis
#### Evelyn M. S. Nutting, Appellant, v. Eugene A. Pettingill and others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Opinion by

Boardman, J.