alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex Parte Barbara June Beal and Soyla Cardona.

No. 25,865.

May 21, 1952.

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1952.

Hon. A. C. Winborn, Judge Presiding.

*Houchins & Goodenow,*by *Kenyon Houchins,*Houston, and *Joe M. Block,*Houston [on motion for rehearing], for appellant.

*Price Daniel,*Attorney General of Texas and *Calvin B. Gar-wood, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, Austin, for respondents, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

This record reflects that appellants (relators in the court below) seek to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this court to review the action of the trial court in refusing to discharge them from custody under a judgment adjudging them to be juvenile delinquents and committing relators to the custody of the Texas Youth Development Council.

Article 5, Section 5, of the Constitution of this state, limits the appellate jurisdiction of this court to criminal cases. The judgments sought to be here nullified are of a class declared by the legislature as appealable to the civil courts and do not *467possess the requisites necessary to constitute a judgment in a criminal case. See Articles 766, .783 and 784, C. C. P.

The appellate jurisdiction of this court is not shown, and the purported appeal is dismissed.

on appellant's motion for rehearing.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

In a motion for rehearing evidencing much study and research, supplemented by able oral presentation, appellants insist that they are unjustly and without authority of law deprived of their liberty, and that the Juvenile Delinquency Act, Art. 2338-1, Vernon’s R. C. S., which forms the basis of their confinement, is invalid.

As pointed out originally, appellants, for redress, seek to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this court by an appeal to this court from the order of the district judge denying the relief prayed for.

The appellate jurisdiction of this court is, by the Constitution, limited to criminal cases. The record before us fails to reflect that appellants’ incarceration or restraint is by reason of a judgment in a criminal case; no criminal statute is shown to have been violated; the judgment was not based upon a complaint, information, or indictment, and none of the requisites of a trial in a criminal case appear.

Whether the proceedings against appellants were civil in nature is not before us. Our appellate jurisdiction attaches only in a criminal proceeding, which this record fails to reflect.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by the court.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6687
STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. W. GRIFFIN; CABARRUS COUNTY, Sheriff Department; W. ERWIN SPAINHOUR, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-218-1) Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 26, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Stanley Lorenzo Williams appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Williams v. Griffin , No. CA-03-218-1 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 2003). 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
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 163 (Thursday, August 21, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 49468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19221]



[[Page 49468]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Eye Institute.
    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of 
individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National 
Eye Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and 
performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, National Eye 
Institute.
    Date: September 8-9, 2008.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 
Center Drive, C1/C2, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Sheldon S Miller, Ph.D., Scientific Director, 
National Institutes of Health, National Eye Institute, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 451-6763.
    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent 
procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, 
including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected 
before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one 
form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, 
driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their 
visit.
    Information is also available on the Institutes/Centers home 
page: http://www.nei.nih.gov, where an agenda and any additional 
information for the meeting will be posted when available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 13, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-19221 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT OSC AR GER A RDO HER

RADAR AM OS, Pe titione r, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-73685 Age n c y No. A072-862-835 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

n d Se c urity Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 18, 2014 * * B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Osc ar Ge ra

rdo He rra da -R am os, a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o pe titions pro se for re vie w of the De p artm e nt of Hom e la nd Se c urity ’ s re insta

te m e nt of his 1993 orde r of de p ortation. Our jurisdiction is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e dism iss the p e tition for re v i e w. 

# FIL ED FEB 24 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w He rra d a -R a m os’ c h a l le nge to the re insta te m e nt of his 1993 de

porta tion orde r be c a

u se he doe s not dispute

the fa c tua l pre d ic ate s for re insta

te m e nt, se eGarc ia de

Rinc on v . De

p ’t. of Home land Se c . , 539 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th C ir. 2008) (listing the thre e de te rm inations underly i ng a re insta te m e nt orde r that

m a y be re v ie we d), nor doe s he a lle ge a gross m isc arria ge of justic e in the unde rly ing 1993 de porta tion proc e e dings, se e id. at 1138 (while a pe titione r is ge ne ra lly

pre v e nte d from

c olla te ra lly atta c king a

n unde rly ing de porta tion orde r on c onstitutiona l or le ga l grounds, 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(2)(D) pe rm its som e m e a sure of re v i e w if he c an de m onstra te a “ gross m i sc arria ge of justic e ” in the unde rly ing proc e e dings). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDISM ISSE D.

1 2 - 7 3 6 8 5 2
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6527 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6527

  To amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to establish a 
     veterans business enterprises program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2022

Mrs. Steel (for herself and Ms. Porter) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Small Business, for 
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to establish a 
     veterans business enterprises program, 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 ``Driving Veterans Success Act''.

SEC. 2. VETERANS BUSINESS ENTERPRISES PROGRAM.

    Section 11101 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public 
Law 117-58) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Veterans Business Enterprises Program.--Except to the extent 
that the Secretary determines otherwise, not less than 10 percent of 
the amounts made available for any program under this division (other 
than section 14004), division C, and section 403 of title 23, United 
States Code, shall be expended through small business concerns owned 
and controlled by veterans, as defined in section 3(q) of the Small 
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(q)).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Application of Frank T. Ahern, Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus against William Elder and Others, as Inspectors of Election in and for the Fourth Election District of the Twenty-fifth Assembly District of the County of New York, Constituting the Board of Inspectors of Election of Said Election District, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.
Exhibit 23.1











CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











Chyron Corporation


Melville, New York








We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-01861, 333-152205 and 333-167086) of Chyron Corporation of our report dated March 21, 2012, relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.








/s/ BDO USA, LLP





BDO USA, LLP





Melville, New York





March 21, 2012
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Porter Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Maria
L. Bouvette, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 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), as applicable, 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | PORTER BANCORP, INC.
|                      |  |                     
|Dated: March 15, 2010 |  | By:                  |  | /s/ Maria L. Bouvette  
|                      |  |                      |  | Maria L. Bouvette      
|                      |  |                      |  | Chief Executive Officer



85
175 La. 402

#### Succession of CARO.

No. 30790.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 20, 1932.

*356St. Julien & Four net, of Lafayette, for appellant.

Lessley & Rouly, of Lafayette, for appellee.

BRUNOT, J.

America Caro died testate, leaving no forced lieirs. Two olographic wills bearing the same date were presented for probate. In one of the wills the testatrix disposed of a part of her estate and in the other she disposed of the remainder of her estate. The wills were probated, a dative testamentary executor was regularly appointed, qualified, and administered the estate. Pending the payment of the legacies bequeathed by the testatrix and the disposal of the residue of the fund realized from the sale of the property, the collateral heirs of the deceased attacked the validity of the wills on the ground that neither will shows “on its face the day, month, year and century when executed.”

The trial judge upheld this contention, declared the wills null and void, and the testamentary executor appealed.

Both wills are dated as follows:

> “Lafayette, La. March 26/25.”

The judgment appealed from in this case was rendered in 1930, before the decisions in Successions of Kron and Wenling were handed down by this ' court. In Succession of Kron, 172 La. 666, 135 So. 19, the will bore the following date: “January llth/27.” In Succession of Wenling, 172 La. 673, 135 So. 21, 22, the will was dated “Jan. 18/28.” In each of the cited cases we held that the month, the day of the month, and the year of the century in which the will was written are certain, and, as to the century, we applied the legal presumption of death after the lapse of one hundred years from the testator’s birth. The cited cases are decisive of this case.

For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and it is now decreed that the appellees’ demands be rejected at their cost.
EXHIBIT 23.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




Legacy Reserves LP




Midland, TX




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-149251 and 333-150111) and Form S-8 (No. 333-144586) of Legacy Reserves LP of our reports dated March 4, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of Legacy Reserves LP’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in the Partnership’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.




/s/ BDO USA, LLP Houston, TX
March 4, 2011




---
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 20, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 49176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19244]



[[Page 49176]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive Patent License; 
Pinon Technologies, Inc.

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy herby gives notice of its intent to 
grant to Pinon Technologies, Inc., a revocable, nonassignable, 
partially exclusive license in the United States to practice the 
Government-Owned invention(s) described in U.S. Patent Number 5,962,863 
entitled ``Laterally Disposed Nanostructures of Silicone on Insulating 
Substrate'', issue date October 4, 1999.

DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file 
written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later 
than September 4, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be filed with the Office of 
Research and Technology Applications, Space and Naval Warfare Systems 
Center, San Diego, Code 73120, 53560 Hull St., San Diego, CA 92152-
5001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen H. Lieberman, Ph.D., Office of 
Research and Technology Applications, Space and Naval Warfare Systems 
Center, San Diego, Code 73120, 53560 Hull St., San Diego, CA 92152-
5001, telephone: 619-553-2778, E-Mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2c1c6d7c2dad7dc9cdedbd7d0d7c0dfd3dcf2dcd3c4cb9cdfdbde"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="72010617021a171c5c1e1b171017001f131c321c13040b5c1f1b1e">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404.

    Dated: August 14, 2008.
T. M. Cruz,
Lieutenant Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-19244 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EX-35 (g)

(logo) PHH Mortgage
(logo) PHH
4001 Leadenhall Road
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054

March 7, 2007

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA
Servicer Oversight Group, Yvonne Williams
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Re: Servicer Compliance Statement

Deal Name: JPALT 2006-S2

Dear Sir and/or Madame:

This statement of compliance is being provided in accordance with Item 1123 of
Regulation AB. The Undersigned hereby states that:

1. I am an authorized officer of PHH Mortgage Corporation (the "Servicer");

2. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from 04/01/2006
(the "Reporting Period") and its performance under the Agreement has been made
under my supervision; and

3. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as described in
section 3(a) hereto, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

     a. The Servicer  did not  maintain or provide one of the  required  monthly
     reports,   specifically  the  S5L2  Fidelity  report,   as  stated  in  the
     transaction  agreement(s)  for the  Reporting  period shown in section 2 of
     this  statement.

By: /s/Deborah A. Rocchi
Name:  Deborah A. Rocchi
Title: Assistant Vice President
#### Joseph A. JARREAU, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Carlos J. DIAZ, Doing Business as Petroleum Coke Corporation, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14064.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 30, 1932.

J. H. Morrison, of New Orleans, for appellant.

D. H. Theard, of New Orleans, for appellee.

HIGGINS, J.

This matter is before us on motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the return day was not within the time limit fixed by law.

We find that the judgment was rendered on October 28, 1931. On November 9, 1931, an order was rendered granting a suspensive appeal. The return day as fixed in the order was November 19, 1931. The transcript was filed in this court on November 19, 1931.

It is contended by mover that, under Act No. 128 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.), in eases such.as this, where the amount in dispute is more than $100 and less than $300, and appeals from city courts are taken to this court, the record must be lodged in this court within ten days from the date on which the judgment was rendered.

For the reasons given by us in Calvin Evans v. First National Life Insurance Company, 142 So. 356, this day decided, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied.

WESTERFIELD, J.,

dissents for written reasons. See Calvin Evans v. First National Life Ins. Co. (La. App.) 142 So. 356, this day decided.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6361 

To require the commanding general of the District of Columbia National 

Guard to reside in the District of Columbia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2022 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill 

JANUARY 10, 2022 

Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To require the commanding general of the District of Columbia National Guard to reside in the District of Columbia. 

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 ‘‘District of Columbia 

5 National Guard Commanding General Residency Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6361 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT THAT THE COMMANDING GENERAL 

2 OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATIONAL 

3 GUARD RESIDE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUM4 BIA. 

5 (a) REQUIREMENT.—Section 7 of the Act entitled 

6 ‘‘An Act to provide for the organization of the militia of 

7 the District of Columbia, and for other purposes’’, ap8 proved March 1, 1889 (sec. 49–301, D.C. Official Code), 

9 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub10 section: 

11 ‘‘(d) The Commanding General of the District of Co12 lumbia National Guard shall reside in the District of Co13 lumbia.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 subsection (a) shall take effect on the day that is one year 

16 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Karen A. Utting, Formerly Known as Karen A. Fiore, Appellant-Respondent, v Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[676 NYS2d 637]

In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant has a duty to defend the plaintiff in a case entitled *Correll v Utting,*pending in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under Index No. 93-12409, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated June 23, 1997, as denied her cross motion for summary judgment, and the defendant Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which denied the plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment and substituting therefor a provision granting the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant is required to defend Karen A. Utting in the underlying action, including the payment of any defense costs already incurred in that action.

The Supreme Court erred in failing to declare that Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (hereinafter Commonwealth) has a duty to defend the plaintiff policyholder. We conclude that the “exception” language that Commonwealth included in the policy after it had inspected the premises is ambiguous and insufficient to qualify as an exception from coverage *(see, Matter of Mostow v State Farm Ins. Cos.,*88 NY2d 321). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.