alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Citizens Bank of Appleton City, Missouri, et al., Respondents, v C.L.R. Brooklyn Realty Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. Fulvan Realty Corp., Nonparty Respondent.

[772 NYS2d 870]

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants C.L.R. Brooklyn Realty Corp., Leonard Peter Smith, and Pearl Smith appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated November 19, 2002, which denied their motions, among other things, to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale dated July 13, 1994, and to cancel a referee’s deed issued on July 12, 1995, and strike it from the public record.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the appellants’ motions, inter alia, to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and to cancel the referee’s deed were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the claims contained therein could have or should have been raised on the defendants’ first motion, brought in 1995, to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale *(see O’Brien v City of Syracuse,*54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]; *Coliseum Towers Assoc. v County of Nassau,*217 AD2d 387 [1996]).

*529The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Transportation Safety Board

# TIME AND DATE: 

9:30 a.m., Tuesday, February 9, 2016

# PLACE: 

NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.

# STATUS: 

The one item is open to the public.

# MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:

                    8734                     *Commercial Truck Collision With Stopped Vehicles on Interstate 88, Naperville, Illinois, January 27, 2014*                     (HWY14FH002)                

# NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: 

Telephone: (202) 314-6100.

The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.

                        Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle Hall at (202) 314-6305 or by email at                         *Rochelle.Hall@ntsb.gov*                         by Friday, February 5, 2016.                    

                        The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at                         *www.ntsb.gov.*

                        Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at                         *www.ntsb.gov.*

# FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: 

                        Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at                         *bingc@ntsb.gov.*

# FOR MEDIA INFORMATION CONTACT: 

                        Keith Holloway at (202) 314-6100 or by email at                         *keith.holloway@ntsb.gov*.                    

Dated: Monday, February 1, 2016.

Candi R. Bing,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2016-02176 Filed 2-2-16; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
Home** Our Work ** Fact Sheets

# Commission Fact Sheets

These fact sheets highlight some of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission’s major programs and activities.
      -  An Overview of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission 
      -  Susquehanna River Basin Facts 

#####  Coordination, Cooperation, and Public Information

      -  Geographic Information System Program 
      -  Lower Susquehanna River Source Water Protection Partnership 
      -  Optimal Groundwater Recharge Locations & Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas   NEW! 
      -  Susquehanna River Basin's Early Warning System 

#####  Flooding

      -  Flash Flood in the Susquehanna River Basin - January 1996 
      -  Flood Summary - June 2006 
      -  Susquehanna Flood Forecast and Warning System 
      -  Tropical Storm Agnes in the Susquehanna River Basin - June 1972 

##### Public Information Pamphlets

      -  Public Information Pamphlets (PIPs) 

##### Regulatory

      -  Aquatic Resource Surveys 
      -  Consumptive Use Mitigation - Evaporation From On-Site Structures Fact Sheet 
      -  Consumptive Use Mitigation - Discontinuance Fact Sheet 
      -  Ensuring Compliance and Enforcement with Commission Regulations 
      -  Groundwater Project Renewal Process 
      -  Natural Gas Development in the Susquehanna River Basin 
      -  Operational Monitoring and Operational Testing 
      -  Public Water Supply Assistance Program 
      -  Registration of Water Uses that Pre-Date Commission Regulations 
      -  Regulating Water Uses in the Susquehanna River Basin 
      -  Water Level Monitoring 

#####  Sustainable Water Development

      -  Conowingo Pond Management Plan - Executive Summary 
      -  Evaluation of Reference Gages for Passby Flow Determinations and Monitoring 
      -  Preventing the Splintering of Authority in the Basin: State College Experience 
      -  Resolving Interstate Water Disputes
      -  Whitney Point Lake Modification Project 

#####  Water Quality

      -  Bear Run Watershed AMD Remediation Project 
      -  Chiques Creek Restoration Initiative
      -  Determining Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in the Susquehanna River Basin 
      - Remote Water Quality Monitoring Network
      - Water Quality Monitoring in the Susquehanna River Basin
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2010

p0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

140587

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140587 COA: 293950 Wayne CC: 02-008338 02 BOBBY ORICK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 11, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
### Proposed Provision: E3.6. Increase the taxable maximum each year by an additional 2 percent beginning in 2026 until taxable earnings equal 90 percent of covered earnings. Do not provide benefit credit for additional earnings taxed.

back
Exhibit 4.1


 


DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE


 


	$60,000.00	Sarasota, FL
	 	November 29, 2022







 


For value received, and intending to be legally bound,
INVO Bioscience Inc. (the “Maker”), promises to pay the total sum of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00) to STEVE SHUM
(the “Holder”) together with a financing fee (the “Fee”) of ten percent (10%). Should this demand
promissory note (this “Note”) not be repaid in full by January 31, 2023, interest shall accrue on the Note from the
date hereof until paid, at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months).
Principal, the Fee and any interest due shall be paid in full on demand, following ten (10) calendar day prior written notice, which may
be given by Holder starting on December 29, 2022. Payments shall be applied first to any accrued interest and then to the financing fee
and shall be made at such place as the Holder may direct.


 


This Note may be prepaid in whole or in part at any
time without penalty, premium or other consideration.


 


All presentment notice of protest or notice of nonpayment
or dishonor are hereby waived, and the failure of the Holder to exercise any of his rights hereunder in any instance shall not constitute
a waiver thereof in that or any other instance.


 


Notwithstanding anything stated to the contrary herein,
this Note shall become immediately due and payable, without any demand or notice whatsoever, upon the commencement of any bankruptcy,
reorganization, receivership or insolvency proceeding by or against the Maker, or upon the Maker making any assignment for the benefit
of creditors.


 


In the event that this Note, together with all accrued
but unpaid interest hereon, is not paid within ten (10) days after the date upon which payment becomes due pursuant to the terms of this
Note, then the Maker agrees to pay all reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred by the Holder in enforcing the obligations
of the Maker under this Note.


 


This Note may not be modified, amended, waived, extended,
changed, discharged or terminated orally or by any act or failure to act on the part of the Maker or the Holder, but only by an agreement
in writing signed by both the Maker and the Holder.


 


This note shall be construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of New York, without regard to those provisions related to choice of law.


 


[Signature follows on next page]


 






    	-1-



     


    

  




 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has executed
and delivered this instrument effective as of the date first written above.


 


	By Maker:	 	Reviewed and Approved By:
	 	 	 
	 /s/ Andrea Goren 	 	 /s/ Matthew Szot 
	Andrea Goren	 	Matthew Szot
	Chief Financial Officer	 	Chairman, Audit Committee
	INVO Bioscience Inc.	 	INVO Bioscience Inc.




 






    	-2-
* 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. 00-21146

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTHUR RAY LEVERTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CR-87-ALL

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

August 30, 2001

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, AND DEMOSS, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Arthur Ray Leverton appeals the sentence imposed by the

district court following the revocation of his term of supervised

release. Leverton argues that his sentence exceeds the statutory

maximum sentence allowed.

A sentence imposed after the revocation of a term of

supervised release will be upheld unless it is in violation of

the law or is plainly unreasonable. United States v. Gonzalez,

250 F.3d 923, 925 (5th Cir. 2001). Leverton was originally

convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and for
No. 00-21146

-2-

making false statements in the acquisition of a firearm in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) & (g)(1). Under 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(a)(2), these offenses carry a maximum prison term of ten

years, making them class C felonies. See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3).

A district court may revoke a term of supervised release and

require a defendant to return to prison. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). 

However, where the offense that resulted in the term of

supervised release is a class C felony, the defendant may not be

required to serve more than two years in prison. Id. The

district court may also impose a term of supervised release to be

served after imprisonment, but only when the term of imprisonment

is less than the maximum term of imprisonment authorized under 18

U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h).

Here, the district court sentenced Leverton to a two-year

term of imprisonment to be followed by a two-year term of

supervised release. Because Leverton was sentenced to the

maximum term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), the

district court was prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) from

imposing a subsequent term of supervised release. Accordingly,

Leverton’s sentence is vacated and the case is remanded to the

district court for resentencing.

VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
EXHIBIT 31.2

     CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, A. Mark Young, certify that:

(1)   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of E Com Ventures, Inc.;

(2)   Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
      statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
      make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
      statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
      this annual report; and

(3)   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
      information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
      respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
      the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
      report.

Date: May 28, 2004

By:  /S/ A. MARK YOUNG
----------------------
A. Mark Young
Chief Financial Officer


                                       28
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Retirement Age

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						C2.1: Increase the earliest eligibility age (EEA) by 2 months per year for those age 62 starting in 2025 and ending in 2042 (EEA reaches 65 for those age 62 in 2042).**

|  |  |
|--|--|
### Proposed Provision: B3.9. Beginning with those newly eligible for OASDI benefits in 2036, gradually reduce the 15 percent PIA factor in each year so that it reaches 10 percent for those newly eligible in 2065 and later.

back
EXHIBIT 99.1

                 EASTON BANCORP, INC. CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
                EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


     We,  the undersigned, certify that to the best of our knowledge, based upon
a  review  of the registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended
December  31,  2002  (the  "Report"):

(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
     registrant.

                                           EASTON BANCORP, INC.
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           (Registrant)



Date:   March 21, 2003                     By: /s/ R. Michael S. Menzies, Sr.
     --------------------                      ---------------------------------
                                                   R. Michael S. Menzies, Sr.
                                                   President
                                                   (Principal Executive Officer)



Date:   March 21, 2003                     By: /s/ Pamela A. Mussenden
     --------------------                      ---------------------------------
                                                   Pamela A. Mussenden
                                                   Assistant Treasurer
                                                   (Principal Financial Officer)


<PAGE>
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------


                                CERTIFICATIONS
                                --------------

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
          10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
          report on Form 10-K of CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2007-1
          (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
          whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
          omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
          in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
          not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
          information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
          covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
          reports;

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
          conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s) required
          in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
          disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have
          fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all
          material respects; and

     5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
          criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
          reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
          asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
          accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
          13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
          except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
          of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
          this report on Form 10-K.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
     information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The
     Bank of New York, as Trustee.

Date:  March 25, 2008

       /s/ Steve Bailey
       --------------------------
       Steve Bailey
       Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer Loan Administration
       (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of
       Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP)
#### MID-CONTINENT REFRIGERATOR COMPANY, a Corporation, v. S. E. DAVENPORT, Trading as LAKE PHELPS GROCERY.

(Filed 21 September, 1955.)

Appeal and Error § 38—

Where the Supreme Court is evenly divided in opinion, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed without becoming a precedent.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Nimocks, J.,*and a jury, at January Term, 1955, OÍ WASHINGTON.

Civil action to recover balance alleged to be due on a conditional sale contract executed by the defendant in purchasing a refrigerator.

The jury, in response to issues submitted on the defendant’s cross-demand pleaded as a set-off, returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, finding that he was entitled to the set-off as claimed. From judgment entered on the verdict, decreeing that the plaintiff recover nothing of the defendant, the plaintiff appealed.

*W. L. Whitley for plaintiff, appellant.*

*No counsel contra.*

Pee Cueiam.

Two members of the Court, *Winborne*and *Higgins, JJ.,*not sitting, but with *Devin, Emergency Justice,*participating in lieu of *Winborne, J.,*and the six sitting members being evenly divided in opinion whether prejudicial error has been shown, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed, without becoming a precedent. *Allen v. Insurance Co.,*211 N.C. 736, 190 S.E. 735.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.4


                            ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC.

                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

                         Six Months Ended June 30, 1998

                      (In thousands, except share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          NUMBER OF SHARES     PERCENT OUTSTANDING   EQUIVALENT SHARES
                                          ----------------     -------------------   -----------------
<C>                                              <C>                <C>                         <C>
1997 Common Stock Offering                       426                100.00%                     426
                                                                                       ------------
                                                                                                426

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                             426

NET LOSS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK                                                    $    (34,550)

NET LOSS PER SHARE, BASIC AND DILUTED                                                  $ (81,103.29)
                                                                                       ============
</TABLE>
NUMBER 13

- 1 8

- 00 475

- CR



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

JASON ROSALEZ

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On a ppeal from the County Court

of San Patricio County, Texas.



### ORDER TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

This cause is currently before the Court on appellant's third unopposed motion for

extension of time to file the brief. A ppellant ’ s brief was originally due to be filed

December 6, 2018. T his Court has previously granted appellant two extensions of time

totaling 125 days to file the brief, and appellant now seeks an additional 60 days, until

June 10, 2019, to file the brief.2

The Co urt GRANTS appellant’s third unopposed motion for extension to file the

brief and ORDERS the Honorable Sandra A. Eastwood to file the brief on or before June

10, 2019. The Court looks with disfavor on the delay caused by counsel’s failure to timely

file a brief in this matter. No further extensions will be granted absent exigent

circumstances. If counsel fails to file the brief within the specified peri od of time, the

Court will act appropriately to ensure that appellant's rights are protected. See id. R.

38.8(b)(4).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

16th day of April

, 2019

.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0247 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ROBERT MATHEW HOLGUIN, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 30 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 25 2021

05/25/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0247