alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles Parkinson, Respondent, v. George H. Munroe and Alexander Munroe, Composing the Firm of Munroe & Munroe, and Others, Impleaded with Lord’s Court Building and The Empire State Surety Company, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Ingraham, J., dissented on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to show a consent by the appellant within the Lien Law.*

*

See Laws of 1897, chap. 418, § 3.— [Rep.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6021 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6021

To prohibit the payment of settlement agreements in certain cases, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2021

   Mrs. Boebert (for herself, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Perry, Mr. Norman, Mr. 
 Tiffany, Mr. Harris, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Weber of Texas, and Mr. Biggs) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the payment of settlement agreements in certain cases, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``We're Not Paying You To Break Our 
Laws Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENTS IN CERTAIN CASES.

    No amounts may be made available from the Treasury for the payment 
of any settlement agreement filed in the United States District Court 
for the District of Arizona in A.I.I.L. v. Sessions, 4:19-CV-00481, or 
any substantially similar civil action brought by an individual as a 
result of an action taken to enforce the memorandum of the Attorney 
General entitled ``Zero-Tolerance for Offenses Under 8 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1325(a)'', and dated April 6, 2018.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit



AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
COLFAX CORPORATION 
AMENDED AND RESTATED EXCESS BENEFIT PLAN
The Colfax Corporation Amended and Restated Excess Benefit Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows, effective as of December 12, 2018:
		
	1.
	Section 1.15 is hereby deleted in its entirety and amended and restated as follows:


“Disability” or “Disabled” shall mean that a Participant is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. A Participant shall be considered Disabled only if he or she meets one or more of the following criteria: 
(a)      He or she has been determined under the Employer’s long-term disability plan as eligible for benefits thereunder; 
(b)      He or she has been determined by the Social Security Administration as eligible for Social Security disability benefits; or 
(c)  He or she has been determined to be Disabled (as defined above) by the Participant’s physician.
In all other respects the Plan, as amended herein, is hereby ratified and confirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Colfax Corporation has caused this instrument to be signed by its duly authorized officer as of this 12th day of December, 2018.
COLFAX CORPORATION
By:/s/ Gunnar Gustafson_______________________
Its:  Vice President, HR and Total Rewards_______




1
Exhibit 35.1

                                     [LOGO]
                                     OCWEN



                      ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
                     PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

March 8, 2007

RE: GSAMP 2006-S2

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Reporting Period"), Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC ("OLS") furnishes this annual servicer compliance statement
pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB, indicating its compliance with the
servicing standards of the Securities & Exchange Commission as set forth in
Regulation AB, 17 CFR ss.229.1100, et seq., ("Regulation AB"). In this regard, I
make the following representations, which are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief in all material respects.

1.    A review of the servicing activities of OLS during the Reporting Period,
      and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as
      of March 1, 2006 (the "Agreement"), has been performed under my
      supervision.

2.    To the best of my knowledge, based on this review, OLS has fulfilled all
      of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout
      the Reporting Period.


                                        By: /s/ Ronald M. Faris
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name: Ronald M. Faris
                                            Title: President




                            Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC
                         1661 Worthington Road Suite 100
                                 Centrepark West
                            West Palm Beach, FL 33409
18574.

#### Bennett, Administratrix, *et al. v.*Bennett *et al.*

Hawkins, Justice.

1. “A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue, or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered, until such judgment shall be reversed or set aside.” Code § 110-501.

2. Where, as here, the widow, as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband and as guardian of their minor child, applies for and obtains leave of the superior court to sell the interest of the deceased husband and father in a partnership at a price and upon terms alleged by her in that proceeding to be fair and equitable, and where in that *722proceeding a guardian ad litem is appointed to represent the interests of the minor ward, and he recommends such sale, the movant in such proceeding who procured such judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, which is regular on its face, will not thereafter be permitted to attack the judgment and the sale made pursuant thereto, and to set the same aside, because of alleged fraudulent misrepresentations as to the value of such interests in the partnership, made to her prior to the institution by her of such proceeding by the surviving partners of her deceased husband, and because the price received therefor was. grossly inadequate. This is true for the reason that one cannot complain of a judgment, order, or ruling that his own procedure or conduct procured or aided in causing. *Wallis*v. *Watson,*184 *Ga.*38 (190 S. E. 360). No one can complain of a judgment which he or she invokes. *Don*v. *Don,*162 *Ga.*240, 242 (133 S. E. 242). See also *Luther*v. *Clay,*100 *Ga.*236 (1) (28 S. E. 46, 39 L. R. A. 95); *American Grocery Co.*v. *Kennedy,*100 *Ga.*462 (28 S. E. 241); *Ellis*v. *Ellis,*161 *Ga.*360, 365 (130 S. E. 681); *Harper*v. *Lindsey,*162 *Ga.*44, 49 (132 S. E. 639); *Fender*v. *Crosby,*209 *Ga.*896 (76 S. E. 2d 769); *Merritt*v. *Merritt,*210 *Ga.*39 (77 S. E. 2d 438).

Argued May 10, 1954

Decided June 14, 1954.

*Herbert W. Wilson, Leon A. Wilson II, Wilson & Wilson,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Blalock & Blalock,*contra.

*(a)*The decisions of this court in *Robinson*v. *Smith,*159 *Ga.*269 (125 S. E. 593), and *Evans*v. *Farkas,*163 *Ga.*433 (136 S. E. 279), relied on by counsel for the plaintiff, do not require a different ruling from that here made, because in those cases the persons attacking the judgments of the court of ordinary granting leave to sell land and the sales made thereunder were not the persons who procured such judgments and made the sales.

3. The trial judge did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the plaintiff’s petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 1999 and the Consolidated
Statement of Income for the nine months ended September 30, 1999, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      447,846
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    114,845
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         102,082
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         7,989
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 672,762
<COMMON>                                        59,626
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       41,410
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            132,789
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 233,825
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           18,000
<PREFERRED>                                     15,500
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           189,895
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    6,940
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 208,602
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  672,762
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      347,841
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            14,632
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     296,348
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     310,980
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         36,861
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 983
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  37,844
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        11,069
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,775
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,758
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   25,017
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        17,651
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       10,745
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          64,645
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.10


</TABLE>
JMK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0669

IN THE MATTER OF:

B.F. and A.F., 

Youth(s) in Need of Care.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 14-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including May 11, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response 

brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 29 2020

04/29/2020
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00254-CV

Connoisseur Encounters Company, Inc. d/b/a The Wine Cellar at Bee Cave, Appellant

v.

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission and Alan Steen, Administrator, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-12-00388, HONORABLE SCOTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Connoisseur Encounters Company, Inc. d/b/a The Wine Cellar at Bee Cave has

informed this Court that the parties have resolved the underlying case and has filed an unopposed

motion to dismissit. Counsel for Connoisseur Encounters states that she has conferred with counsel

for Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission and Alan Steen, Administrator, who do not oppose

this motion. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: November 7, 2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

NORRISTOWN ACADEMY CHARTER 

SCHOOL,

Respondent

v.

NORRISTOWN AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 63 MAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of July, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal and 

Application to Reinstate Automatic Supersedeas are DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements contained in the Company's Form 10-K for the period ending
March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,675
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,193
<ALLOWANCES>                                       205
<INVENTORY>                                         24
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,119
<PP&E>                                           6,345
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,392
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,712
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,485
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,172
<OTHER-SE>                                    (50,048)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,712
<SALES>                                         15,806
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,806
<CGS>                                            7,442
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,376
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (160)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,852)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (13)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,839
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,839)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.39)


</TABLE>
#### Richard Zane HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janie COCKRELL, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-40203.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Richard Zane Hill, Texas prisoner # 680838, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. Hill is seeking a mandatory-release date and contends that he has adequately stated a violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” *Preiser v. Rodriguez,*411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). Thus, Hill's complaint did not state a cognizable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); *see also Berry v. Brady,*192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir.1999).

This appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal and this court’s dismissal count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See generally Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Hill is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes he may not 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*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT
      12.2




CERTIFICATION




I,
      Peter
      Li, certify that:





1.  I
      have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Yucheng Technologies
      Limited;





2.  Based
      on
      my knowledge, this 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 report;





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





4.  The
      company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:





(a)  Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
      and
      procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
      information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
      is
      made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
      in which this report is being prepared;





(b)  Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and procedures and
      presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
      this
      report based on such evaluation; and





(c)  Disclosed
      in this report any change in the company's internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that
      has
      materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's
      internal control over financial reporting; and





5.  The
      company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company's
      auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of directors (or persons
      performing the equivalent functions):





(a)  All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of
      internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the company's ability to record, process, summarize and report
      financial information; and





(b)  Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the company's internal control over financial
      reporting.





Date:
      June 22, 2007




/s/
                Peter LiName:
                Peter LiTitle:
                Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 160 (Monday, August 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 48193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18979]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New Jersey Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, that a day-long briefing meeting before a 
subcommittee of the Pennsylvania State Advisory Committee of the U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights will convene at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, 
September 8, 2008, at the Monroe County Administrative Center, 1 Quaker 
Plaza, Room 203, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 19360.
    The purpose of this meeting is to receive presentations from 
experts on civil rights matters in Monroe County, PA.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the Eastern Regional Office by September 
22, 2008. The address is 624 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20425. 
Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or who desire additional 
information should contact Alfreda Greene, Secretary, 202-376-7533, TTY 
202-376-8116 or by e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2c3c5d0c7c7ccc7e2d7d1c1c1d08cc5cdd4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f7e786d7a7a717a5f6a6c7c7c6d31787069">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Hearing impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the service of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above 
e-mail or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act.

    Dated in Washington, DC, August 12, 2008.
Christopher Byrnes,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. E8-18979 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### William Wilson v. New York Contracting Company.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
#### Pioneer Iron Works, Respondent, v. Marine Engine and Machine Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Ingraham, J., dissented on the ground of erroneous rulings on the exclusion of the expert testimony.
Exhibit 4.2 


   


 Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 


   






 We have issued our report dated February 7, 2020, with respect
to the financial statement of m+ funds Trust, Series 1-9 contained in Amendment No. 2 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6
(File No. 333-235758) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration Statement
and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm”. 


   


   


 /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 


   


 Chicago, Illinois 


 February 7, 2020