alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Ruth T. Diamond, Petitioner. 87 Nassau Street Corporation et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

March 21, 1956.

*Albert I. Edelman*for respondents.

*Harry A. Roth*for petitioner.

Morris Eder, J.

Respondents move to vacate a notice of examination and for an order directing that their deposition, if ordered to be taken, follow the completion of the depositions of petitioner and of her husband, Arthur Diamond. Petitioner’s proposed items of examination are modelled upon respondents’ prior notice to examine her, as to which no objection was raised. Petitioner’s knowledge of the facts to be elicited does not *409deprive her of the right to examine respondents concerning them. Item 6, however, is to be limited to the two-named corporations and *‘ ‘*the various corporations which were parties to the agreement of May 29, 1947 ”, this clause being taken from Item 5 of respondents’ notice and hence unobjectionable. The production of books and records is for the limited use on the examination before trial provided in section 296 of the Civil Practice Act and not the inspection of corporate books and records which is the ultimate relief sought in this proceeding pursuant to section 10 of the Stock Corporation Law. In view of the issues raised regarding petitioner’s status as a stockholder, full inquiry along the lines set forth in the notice (except, as indicated, with regard to Item 6) is authorized, a conclusion which follows, indeed, naturally from respondents’ own notice to examine to the same full extent.

Concerning the matter of priority: Petitioner is willing to defer respondents’ examination until completion of her examination by them but objects to the request that their examination be deferred until after her husband’s examination. The latter request is unwarranted. Parties’ reciprocal examinations are in the ordinary course of litigation to be held first and questions of priority arise only as to them. Rule XI of the trial term rules of this court deals only with the subject of priority with respect to examinations before trial of " adverse parties The only possible basis for deferring respondents’ examination until completion of petitioner’s and her husband’s examinations would be on the assumption that she is only a nominal party. That argument was, however, rejected in the disposition of respondents’ notice, the court granting the motion to vacate as to him without prejudice to service of a further notice or motion to examine him after completion of his wife’s examination. We thus have no pending notice or motion to examine the witness upon which the request for priority as to him could be based. The conclusion reached upon the prior determination that the petitioner’s examination is not a mere matter of form and that she is in all respects to be regarded as the adverse party is binding on this question of priority with relation to her husband’s examination. He must therefore be deemed for present purposes a mere witness, as to whom no privilege of priority may be asserted to defer the examination of a party to the action.

Settle order accordingly.
219 La. 817

#### KRAMER v. STATE BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINERS.

No. 40284.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 29, 1951.

For opinion of Court of Appeal see 55 So.2d 93.

Bolivar E. Kemp, Jr., Atty. Gen., James G. Palmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent-appellant.

Racivitch, Johnson & Wegmann, Herve Racivitch, Warren E. Mouledoux, William J. Conrad, New Orleans, for relator-appel-lee.

HAMITER, Justice.

Applicable and controlling here is our decision rendered April 23, 1951 (rehearing refused May 28, 1951), in Montegut v. Louisiana State Board of Dentistry, La.Sup., 52 So.2d 862. There we declined appellate jurisdiction of a mandamus proceeding in which the relator sought only to compel the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry to issue to him a license for the practicing of dentistry in Louisiana without requiring his taking an examination, our reason being that authority for entertaining an appeal in such an action is not granted to us by Section 10, Article 7 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921. Similarly, in this cause the relator seeks only to compel, by mandamus, the State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to examine him, and to issue a license, for the practicing of veterinary medicine and surgery in the State of Louisiana.

Therefore, it is ordered that this cause be transferred to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, pursuant to the provisions of L.S.A.-R.S. 13:4441, 13:4442, the record to be filed in such court by appellant within thirty days from the date on which this decree shall become final; otherwise, the appeal shall stand dismissed.
Exhibit 31.3


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, John A. Brooks, Interim Principal Executive Officer of Penn Virginia Corporation (the “Registrant”), certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Registrant (this “Report”);


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; and


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 Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report.








Date: November 28, 2016


/s/ JOHN A. BROOKSJohn A. BrooksInterim Principal Executive Officer
EX-35 (c)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

March 13, 2007

Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc.

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Home
Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-HE2

Per Section 3.13 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 4/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Securities Administrator),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

(A)  a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or
     portion thereof and of such Servicing Function Participant's performance
     under this Agreement, or such other applicable agreement in the case of a
     Servicing Function Participant, has been made under such officer's
     supervision and

(B)  to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
     has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
     applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function Participant (other
     than the related Servicer, the Master Servicer or the Securities
     Administrator), in all material respects throughout such year or portion
     thereof, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in
     any material respect, specifying each such failure known to such officer
     and the nature and status thereof.


Certified By:
/s/ Reid Denny
Reid Denny, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (“First Amendment”) is made effective as of April 22, 2014, by and between
CYPRESS PROPERTIES I, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company, CYPRESS PROPERTIES II, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company and M & T ENTERPRISES, INC., a South Carolina corporation (collectively, and joint and severally,
(“Seller”) and WHEELER INTERESTS, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (“Purchaser”). 
 RECITALS: 

Whereas, Seller and Purchaser previously entered into that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated March 19, 2014, (the
“Agreement”) for the sale of the Property as defined in the Agreement, including, without limitation, certain real property and improvements located in Boiling Springs, South Carolina; 

WHEREAS, Purchaser and Seller desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, Purchaser and Seller hereby undertake and agree as follows: 
 1. Defined Terms. Terms defined in the Agreement shall
have the same meanings in this First Amendment unless specifically codified herein. 
 2. Inspection Period. Purchaser and Seller
agree that the definition of Inspection Period, as defined in Section 1.7 of the Agreement is deleted and the following is substituted: 

1.7 Inspection Period. The period commencing on the Delivery Date (but in no event commencing before the Effective Date), and concluding
at 11:59 p.m. eastern time 65 days after the Delivery Date. 
 3. Execution by Facsimile/Counterparts. Execution of this instrument
may be evidenced by facsimile signature which shall be deemed an original for all purposes. To facilitate execution, this First Amendment may be executed in as many counterparts as may be required; and it shall not be necessary that the signature
of, or on behalf of, each party, or that the signatures of the persons required to bind any party, appear on one or more such counterparts. All counterparts shall collectively constitute a single agreement. 

4. Agreement Remains in Effect. Subject to the specific amendments and agreements set forth in this First Amendment, the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect without modification. 
 [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller and Purchaser have caused this First Amendment to be signed as of the
date first above written. 
  

			
	SELLER:
	CYPRESS PROPERTIES I, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Ted Siachos

	Its Managing Member
	
	CYPRESS PROPERTIES II, LLC a South Carolina limited liability company
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Ted Siachos

	Its Managing Member
	
	M & T ENTERPRISES, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Ted Siachos

	Its President
	
	PURCHASER:
	WHEELER INTERESTS, LLC. a Virginia limited liability company
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jon S. Wheeler

	Its:	 	Managing Member
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
   <ARTICLE> 5
   <LEGEND>
   THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
   CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME
   OF J. C. PENNEY FUNDING CORPORATION AS OF OCTOBER 25, 1997, AND IS
   QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
   </LEGEND>
   <MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
          
   <S>                             <C>
   <PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
   <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
   <PERIOD-END>                               OCT-25-1997
   <CASH>                                               0
   <SECURITIES>                                         0
   <RECEIVABLES>                                    3,378
   <ALLOWANCES>                                         0
   <INVENTORY>                                          0
   <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,378
   <PP&E>                                               0
   <DEPRECIATION>                                       0
   <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,378
   <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,237
   <BONDS>                                              0
   <COMMON>                                           145
   <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
   <PREFERRED>                                          0
   <OTHER-SE>                                         996
   <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,378
   <SALES>                                              0
   <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
   <CGS>                                                0
   <TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
   <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
   <LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
   <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (50)
   <INCOME-PRETAX>                                     50
   <INCOME-TAX>                                        18
   <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 32
   <DISCONTINUED>                                       0
   <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
   <CHANGES>                                            0
   <NET-INCOME>                                        32
   <EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
   <EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
           


















</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6145 

To require the appropriate Federal banking agencies to develop a Community 

Bank Leverage Ratio that is between 8 percent and 8.5 percent for 

calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2021 

Mr. MANN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require the appropriate Federal banking agencies to develop a Community Bank Leverage Ratio that is between 

8 percent and 8.5 percent for calendar years 2022, 2023, 

and 2024, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Community Bank Re5 lief Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMMUNITY BANK LEVERAGE RATIO. 

7 Section 201 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Re8 lief, and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5371 note) 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6145 IH

1 is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(b) COMMUNITY BANK LEVERAGE RATIO.— 

4 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The appropriate Federal 

5 banking agencies shall, through notice and comment 

6 rule making under section 553 of title 5, United 

7 States Code— 

8 ‘‘(A) develop a Community Bank Leverage 

9 Ratio of not less than 8 percent and not more 

10 than 10 percent for qualifying community 

11 banks; and 

12 ‘‘(B) establish procedures for treatment of 

13 a qualifying community bank that has a Com14 munity Bank Leverage Ratio that falls below 

15 the percentage developed under paragraph (1) 

16 after exceeding the percentage developed under 

17 paragraph (1). 

18 ‘‘(2) CALENDAR YEARS 2022, 2023, AND 2024.— 

19 Not withstanding paragraph (1), the appropriate 

20 Federal banking agencies shall, through notice and 

21 comment rule making under section 553 of title 5, 

22 United States Code, develop a Community Bank Le23 verage Ratio to apply during the period beginning on 

24 January 1, 2022, and ending on December 31, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6145 IH

1 2024, that is not less than 8 percent and not more 

2 than 8.5 percent for qualifying community banks.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### W. R. ROSS & SON v. RIVERTON GIN CO., Inc.

No. 4787.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

May 4, 1934.

Vinson M. Mouser, of Columbia, for appellant.-

• C. P. Thornhill, of Columbia, and J. B. Thornhill, of Monroe, for appellee.

*369DREW, Judge.

In this case appellant has made no appearance in this court either by filing of -brief or argument. We therefore presume the appeal has been abandoned.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that tlie appeal taken herein is dismissed as having been abandoned.
Exhibit 15.2

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors and Shareholders of Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb and Service GmbH & Co. KG,
Unterföhring:

We
have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb and Service GmbH & Co. KG, Unterföhring (and subsidiaries),
as of March 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in consolidated equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended
March 31, 2009. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We
conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Company's internal control over financial
reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose
of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In
our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb and
Service GmbH & Co. KG, Unterföhring (and subsidiaries), at March 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash
flows for each of the three years in the period ended March 31, 2009, in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board
(IASB).

July 22,
2009

Ernst &
Young GmbH
Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft
Munich, Germany

/s/ RALF BOSTEDT Wirtschaftsprüfer



/s/ JOSEF CHRIST Wirtschaftsprüfer


---



QuickLinks
#### Louis Bookbinder, Respondent, v. New York Millinery and Supply Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Mo opinion.
Exhibit
10.1


 


[On NeoRx Corporation Letterhead]


 


November 4, 2004


 


Mr. Ken Brooks


Associate Director


University of Missouri Research Reactor


1513 Research Park Drive


Columbia, MO 65211


 


RE:          March 1, 2004
Supply Agreement


NeoRx Corporation — MURR


 


Dear Ken,


 


We are pleased to inform you and the University that pursuant to
paragraph 10.1(b) of our Supply Agreement, NeoRx wishes to exercise our option
to extend the term of such agreement another year, which would effectively
extend the agreement to March 1, 2006.


 


Since this extension requires the consent of the University, “...which
will not be unreasonably withheld...”, we ask that you provide us with your
consent by November 15 by signing the acknowledgment below and returning
to me via facsimile at 206-286-2537.


 


We look forward to another year working with you and MURR.


 


	
  Sincerely,

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  s/Anna Lewak Wight

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Anna Lewak Wight

  	
   

  
	
  Vice-President, Legal

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Pursuant to paragraph 10.1(b) of the March 1,
  2004 Supply Agreement, we hereby consent to the above extension.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  The Curators of the University of Missouri

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  s/ Lisa I. Wimmeneur

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name: Lisa
  I. Wimmeneur

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Its:
  Associate Director, Business Services
November 14 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL DUPUY , Appellant
NO. 14

- 13

- 00804

- CR NO. 14

- 13

- 00805

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opini on. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Kermit J. OBERMEYER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

July 23, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Kumar MAINIGI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tommy G. THOMPSON, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-1637.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 28, 2002.

Decided Nov. 7, 2002.

*607George M. Chuzi, Kalijarvi, Chuzi *&*Newman, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Larry D. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Kumar Mainigi appeals the district court’s order denying his claims under on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Mainigi v. Thompson,*No. CA-98-1088-CCB (D.Md. Mar. 23, 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6630 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6630

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1400 N Kraemer Blvd. in Placentia, California, as the ``PFC Jang Ho 
                      Kim Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2022

    Mrs. Kim of California introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1400 N Kraemer Blvd. in Placentia, California, as the ``PFC Jang Ho 
                      Kim Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. PFC JANG HO KIM POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2400 N Kraemer Blvd. in Placentia, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``PFC Jang Ho Kim Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``PFC Jang 
Ho Kim Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```