alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
205 La. 791

#### GERSTNER v. STRINGER.

No. 36920.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 17, 1944.

Rehearing Denied May 22, 1944.

R. A. Dowling, of New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellant.

Michel Musson, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

PONDER, Justice.

The plaintiff, Joseph H. Gerstner, has appealed from a judgment condemning him to pay his divorced wife, Rose Stringer, $50 per month alimony.

On December 10, 1937, the plaintiff was granted a divorce from Rose Stringer, his wife. At that time, he was ordered to pay alimony in the sum of $60 per month for the support of his wife and his minor child.

On September 20, 1941, the minor child having arrived at the age of majority, the plaintiff sought by way of rule to have the alimony reduced to the sum of $30 per month. In answer to the rule, the defendant alleged that the alimony should be increased to the sum of $125 per month because of her ill health and necessitous circumstances.

On hearing, the lower court gave judgment fixing the amount of the alimony at $50 per month, payable on the 1st and 16th of each month. The plaintiff has appealed. The defendant has answered the appeal asking that the alimony be increased to the sum of $108 per month, payable $54 semi-monthly.'

The plaintiff is presently employed and receives a salary of $75 per week. He has been receiving a salary in this amount for the past eighteen years. He is in poor health and appears to have a serious form of arthritis. He also has sciatica which requires an operation. Fie admits that he has received his salary during his illness.

The defendant, Mrs. Rose Stringer Gerstner, has no income. She shares a rented house with her sister arid two daughters. Her sister and each of her two daughters contribute $30 toward the maintenance of the home. The defendant looks after and manages the home. The defendant’s monthly expenses amount to approximately $42.75. The defendant has no occupation and appears to be in ill health.

Under the circumstances in this case, we see no reason to1 disturb the judgment of the trial court.

*196Both the plaintiff and the defendant are in ill health. It is true that the minor has now reached the age of majority, but considering the income of the husband, his physical condition, the physical condition of Mrs. Stringer as well as the arrangement she has with her sister and daughters in maintaining a home, the amount of alimony fixed by the trial court appears to be reasonable and just to both the plaintiff and defendant.

The trial judge is vested with discretion in fixing the amount of alimony, provided it does not exceed one-third of the husband’s income. Article 160, Revised Civil Code. The facts and circumstances peculiar to each case must be considered. We are not warranted in disturbing the findings of the trial judge unless there is manifest error. We see no such error in this cause.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

O’NIELL, C. J., takes no part.

ODOM, J., absent.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RIGOBERTO RAMIREZ-GONZALEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

Case No. 2D21-277

September 24, 2021

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Margaret O. 

Steinbeck, Judge.

Christopher E. Cosden of Law Office of Christopher E. Cosden, Fort 

Myers, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ryan Michael 

Edmiston, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, BLACK, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur.
2

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### Dean A. Mirasola et al., Respondents, v Henry Gilman, Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for wrongfully diverting corporate assets, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered April 25, 1988, which, after a nonjury trial, *inter alia,*is in favor of the plaintiff Fabtronics Manufacturing Corp. in the principal sum of $358,274.98.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The factual determination in this case involved one of the credibility of the witnesses. “The advantages of the trial court who saw and heard the witnesses should be considered and, when truth hangs upon the credibility of witnesses [its] decision should be given the greatest weight” *(Amend v Hurley,*293 NY 587, 594; *see, Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford,*60 NY2d 492, 499; *Matter of Fasano v State of New York,*113 AD2d 885; *Janowitz Bros. Venture v 25-30 120th St. Queens Corp.,*75 AD2d 203). In this light, we find no basis on the record to disturb the trial court’s finding that the defendant wrongfully diverted the funds of the plaintiff corporation.

We disagree with the defendant’s contention that the damages to the corporate plaintiff should be reduced to reflect the beneficial interest which the defendant had in the corporation at the time of his defalcation. It is settled that “because a shareholders’ derivative suit seeks to vindicate a wrong done to the corporation through enforcement of a corporate cause of action, any recovery obtained is for the benefit of the injured corporation” *(Glenn v Hoteltron Sys.,*74 NY2d 386, 392; *see, Wolff v Wolff,*67 NY2d 638).

It is irrelevant that the plaintiff’s decedent Peter Mirasola was the sole shareholder in the corporation at the time judgment was entered, and thus was likely to personally benefit from the judgment *(see, Overmyer v Todd,*77 AD2d 919, *affd*55 NY2d 766; *New Castle Siding Co. v Wolfson,*97 AD2d 501, 502, *affd*63 NY2d 782).

The same argument applies to the wrongful diversion of funds committed through P & H Associates, a corporate entity jointly owned by the defendant and the plaintiff’s decedent Peter Mirasola. Since the corporate plaintiff is a separate corporate entity from P & H Associates, the defendant cannot be heard to say that, while the corporate plaintiff’s assets were wrongfully diverted, its shareholders ultimately person*372ally benefited. Such an argument is antithetical to the distinction between the corporate entity and its shareholders.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6964 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 Union Calendar No. 498
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6964

                          [Report No. 117-681]

 To authorize leases of up to 99 years for lands held in trust for the 
            Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 2022

   Ms. Strickland (for herself, Mr. Kilmer, and Ms. Herrera Beutler) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

                           December 30, 2022

Additional sponsors: Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Larsen of Washington, 
Mr. Newhouse, Mrs. Rodgers of Washington, Ms. Jayapal, Ms. DelBene, and 
                              Ms. Schrier

                           December 30, 2022

  Reported from the Committee on Natural Resources; committed to the 
 Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to 
                               be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize leases of up to 99 years for lands held in trust for the 
            Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation.

 

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

SECTION 1. CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION LEASING 
              AUTHORITY.

    Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of August 9, 1955 
(25 U.S.C. 415(a)), is amended in the second sentence by inserting ``, 
land held in trust for the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis 
Reservation'' after ``Crow Tribe of Montana''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 498

117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6964

                          [Report No. 117-681]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To authorize leases of up to 99 years for lands held in trust for the 
            Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 30, 2022

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                            1,132
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    29,448
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3,840
<INVENTORY>                                      26,236
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                101,498
<PP&E>                                           36,810
<DEPRECIATION>                                   24,296
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  146,078
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            88,311
<BONDS>                                             344
<COMMON>                                            215
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                       49,030
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    146,078
<SALES>                                         133,881
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                133,881
<CGS>                                           114,182
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   129,587
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  306
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3,983
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1,833
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2,150
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2,150
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .11   
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .11
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.1



Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services,
Inc.





This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant
to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 18, 2018 (the “Agreement”) and Item 1123 of
Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2018-3 (the “Trust”),
the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents
by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith. The capitalized
terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.



The undersigned certifies
that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as
follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during
the preceding period from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations
under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any
such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. |                                         | 
|------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------- | 
|                                     |                                         | 
|By:                                  | /s/ Connie Coffey                       | 
|                                     | Connie Coffey                           | 
|                                     | Executive Vice President, Corporate     | 
|                                     | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |
*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.

-1-

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 01-41276

MARCIA R. COFFMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

VERSUS

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, and

WAYNE SCOTT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(01-CV-466)

November 19, 2002

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After reviewing the briefs and pertinent portions of the

record and hearing the arguments of counsel, we agree with the

magistrate judge that the doctrines of equitable tolling and

equitable estoppel do not save Coffman’s Title VII claims from
1See Clark v. Resistoflex Co., 854 F.2d 762, 768 (5th Cir. 1988)

(ADEA case); see also Coke v. Gen. Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 640

F.2d 584, 587, 594–95 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (finding Title VII

and ADEA cases to be interchangeable on the issues of timeliness of

an EEOC charge and equitable tolling).

2Tyler v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 304 F.3d 379, 391 (5th Cir.

2002). 

-2-

being time-barred.

In her deposition, Coffman testified that she learned about

what qualifies as sexual harassment in a correctional studies

course she took in 1994. She also learned in that course that

victims have rights in response to sexual harassment. In addition,

before the September 1996 incident, Coffman attended a mandatory

meeting at her unit on the topic of sexual harassment, and her

supervisors discussed the Department’s intolerance of sexual

harassment during staff meetings on at least two occasions.

Because the record reflects that Coffman had general knowledge of

her right not to be harassed on the basis of her sex, equitable

tolling does not apply in this case.1

Furthermore, for equitable estoppel to apply, the TDCJ must

have reasonably induced Coffman to refrain from exercising her

rights.2 But Coffman testified in her deposition that nobody at

the TDCJ led her to believe that the Department’s internal equal

employment opportunity division was the same entity as the federal

EEOC. And in response to the defendants’ motion for summary

judgment, Coffman did not go beyond the allegations in her

pleadings and designate specific facts showing that the Department
-3-

intentionally delayed its investigation in this matter so that she

would miss the deadline for filing a charge of discrimination with

the EEOC. Finally, Coffman has not shown that there is a genuine

issue for trial concerning whether Investigator Cynthia Tilley’s

alleged representation that she would “take care of everything” was

broader in scope than the Department’s internal investigation of

Coffman’s complaint. Consequently, the defendants are not

equitably estopped from asserting the 300-day limitations period.

AFFIRMED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 17, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 17, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0165. ROGER C. WILSON v. MARATHON INVESTMENT CORP et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2010CV187557
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before HUT CHISON , TANG , and KOVAC , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Brendon J. HENDERSON Lance Corporal (E

- 3 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant
No. 201900056
Decided: 25 June 2019. Appeal from the United States Nav y - Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

. Military Judge : Colonel Glen R. Hines, USMC

. Sentence adjudged 10 December 2018 by a general court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina , consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence ap proved by convening authority : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 25 months , 1 and a dishonorable discharge

. For Appellant: Commander R. Don Evans, Jr., JAGC, USN

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ This opinion does not serve as b inding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________

1 The Convening Authority suspended confinement in excess of 24 months pursuant to a pretrial agreement.United States v. Henderson , No. 201 900 0 56

2 PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the a ppellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. T he findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are AFFIRMED

.
FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-21-00427-CR

Christian Israel FRANKLIN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR6244

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED December 1, 2021.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 172 (Thursday, September 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20449]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11409 and <greek-i>11410]


Florida Disaster <greek-i>FL-00035

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-1785-DR), dated 08/26/
2008.
    Incident: Tropical Storm Fay.
    Incident Period: 08/18/2008 and continuing.
    Effective Date: 08/26/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/27/2008.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/26/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster 
declaration for the State of FLORIDA , dated 08/26/2008 is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:

Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Hendry, 
Okeechobee, Saint Lucie, Volusia.
Contiguous Counties: (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Florida: Broward, Charlotte, Collier, Flagler, Glades, Highlands, 
Lake, Lee, Marion, Martin, Palm Beach, Polk, Putnam.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-20449 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Precision Castparts Corp. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended July 1, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Donegan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|Date: August 10, 2007               
|                                    
|/s/ Mark Donegan                    
|Mark Donegan                        
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer