alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 34350.

Department One.

October 17, 1957.]

#### *In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of*Lawrence R. Braun, Jr., *Petitioner,*v. Ray Belnap, *as Superintendent of the State Reformatory,*Respondent.1

*Lawrence R. Braun, Jr., pro se.*

*The Attorney General*and *Michael R. Alfleri, Assistant,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 316 P. (2d) 472.

Per Curiam.

The petitioner was found guilty of a violation of RCW 9.54.020, Rem. Rev. Stat. § 2601-1, and on May 10, 1955, was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not more than twenty years. (He was at the same time sentenced to not more than fifteen years on a conviction for the crime of second-degree burglary [a violation of RCW 9.19.020, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2579], the two offenses being charged in the same information, and the sentences to run concurrently.)

The petitioner’s application for a writ of *habeas corpus*is devoid of merit, his contentions being concerned with the admission of evidence, which should have been reviewed by appeal. No complaint is made concerning the excessive sentence for the violation of RCW 9.54.020, *supra,*but the assistant attorney general points out that the maximum for the offense charged should be ten years, RCW 9.92.010, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2265, instead of twenty. *In re Klapproth v. Squier*(1957), 50 Wn. (2d) 675, 314 P. (2d) 430; *In re Richey v. Squier*(1957), *ante*p. 38, 315 P. (2d) 638.

For the reasons indicated in *In re Klapproth v. Squier, supra,*and in *In re Richey v. Squier, supra,*the petitioner is to be returned to the court where judgment and sentence was entered and that court is directed to impose a corrected sentence for the violation of RCW 9.54.020, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2601-1, in accordance with RCW 9.92.010, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2265 and the cases cited.

This, of course, in no way affects the sentence on the conviction for second-degree burglary.
#### Feldman *v.*Standard Trust Bank of Cleveland et al.

(No. 24266

Decided October 4, 1933.)

*Mr. Baruch A. Feldman,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John W. BricJcer,*attorney general, *Mr. M. P. Mooney*and *Messrs. Stanley, Horwitz S Kiefer,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in errbr be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the *182reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Bevis, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.
#### The State, ex rel. Bricker, Atty. Genl., *v.*Bolasny.

(No. 24531

Decided January 11, 1934.)

*Mr. John W. Bricker,*attorney general, *Mr. Joseph Godown*and *Mr. Isadore Topper,*for relator.

*Mr. I. B. Morris,*for respondent.

The court finds the defendant, Bertha Belle Bolasny, guilty as charged in the information. And the said defendant being now before the court for sentence and having nothing further to say, it is ordered and adjudged that said defendant pay to the clerk of this court the costs of this action.

It is further ordered and adjudged that the said Bertha Belle Bolasny be forever barred from admission to the bar of Ohio.

It is therefore ordered that the marshal of this *592court be charged with the custody of said defendant and that upon failure by her to pay said costs, that said marshal shall deliver said defendant in person to the custody of the sheriff of said Franklin county, at the county jail, for service of said costs.

*Finding of guilty.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.5

Certification Pursuant to Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act

I, Thomas M. OFlynn,
certify that:

1.

I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PSEG Power LLC;

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 registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The
registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The
registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.

|Date:   October 30, 2003 | /s/ Thomas
  M. OFlynn  
|------------------------ | -------------------------
|                         |                          
|                         | Thomas M. OFlynn        
|                         | PSEG Power
  LLC         
|                         | Chief
  Financial Officer
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, CoreyHenry, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-3(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain 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 thisreport; 

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

4. Based onmy knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement inall material respects; and 

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

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells FargoBank, N.A. and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. 

 
By: 
/s/ Corey Henry
Name: Corey HenryTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date: March 31, 2022**
EXHIBIT 32.4

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18of the United States Code

I, Ralph Izzo, Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of Public Service Electric and Gas Company
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Public Service Electric and Gas Company.

| | /s/
    Ralph Izzo                                                                 
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Ralph IzzoPublic Service Electric and Gas CompanyChief Executive OfficerMay 6, 2008



---
### fN THE, COURT BF Am/iL' 

## 9October20I5 AT SAN ANTOHIO. TEX.-r 20ISOCTI2 PH Is 57 HONORABLE JASON PULLIAM FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER 300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200 

### SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037 OSTTLf.CLfRK Judge Pulliam: 

### Sir, I Erasmo Figueroa, the Appellant Pro se and on a case by case basis am respectfully requesting an extension for the order which the Honorable Court ofAppeals has issued in reference to the below styled and numbered cause; September 25, 2015
RE: Court ofAppeals Number: 04-15-00238-CV Trial Court Case Number: 2015CV01973 Style: Erasmo Figueroa
V, Villas ofVista Del Norte Sir, I was instructed to stand fast as I would be notified when the Appellate Briefwould be due
as the FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS awaited the RPT RECORD and RECORD CV for the 

### above styled and numbered cause. Since April2015,1 have received eight notifications and none ofthem have instructions/notices on when the Appellate Briefis due including the last one I received as email on the 25 ofSeptember 2015. 

### On 24 September, 2015,1 received some devastating news from my primary care Dr. at the V. A. Hospital. He told me I have kidney cancer. I have not really concentrated on much ofanything else since then. Judge Pulliam, I vehemently apologize for not communicating sooner. My mind has been and is still in a fog since then. I diligently started working on the brieflast past weekend but for three days, I could not concentrate on my computer. I would type away but nothing was making sense. Sir, with your and the 4th Court ofAppeals' permission, 1 am respectfully requesting at least a week to complete the Appellant BriefPro se. As a U S Armed Forces Service Disabled Veteran, I am trying to remain very proud, strong, and have not shared my misfortune with many. Sir, I am willing to show you proofif necessary. I beg the court's leniency. Respectfully

-rasmo Appellate Pro se
THEATTORN~Y GENEHAL 

OIFTEXA~ 

Febrmry 3, 1939 

Mr. Stirling T. Phelps 

Coumty Attorney 

Webb county 

Laredo, Texas 

DearMr. Phalps: 

Opinion No. O-255 

RE: May Webb Comty Issue Ponds or 

Warrants to Raise Funds with 

which to Acquire Property and 

Erect Buildings for the @urposes 

covered by Art. 2372D, Il. C. S. 

1925, County Horticultural and 

Agricultural Exhibits, Section 1 

In reply to your letter of January'& submitting the above captioned 

question to this department for an opinion, pIsam be advisad;that we are 

hereby adopting the opinion of this department as rendered November 4, 1938, 

and which opinion was in answer to ~a similar question submitted on October 

24, 1938.. 

As indicated in your recent letter, t&Fe has been 8ome change in the plans 

of the Convaissicner' Court with reference to the set-up for the buildings 

as set forth in your first inquiry. We are of the opinion that such change, 

as in suggested in your last conrmunication, does not in anywise affect our 

previous ruling in this matter. 

Accordingly, you are respectfully advised that the Commissioners' Court of 

Webb County has the right, under the law, to order an election to determine 

whether or not bonds should be issued for the purpose of building the necessary building pursuant to Articla 2372D. 

It is our further opinion that the Commissioners' Court would have the 

right to issue warrants for this purpose, but must be issued as provided 

by Articie 2368~. 

Yours respectfully 

CEC-6 A!ECORNEY OENERAL ,OF TEXAS 

APPROVED: m 

GERALDC.MAnn 

ATTORNkYCETEBALOFTEXAS 

Clarence C. Crowe 

Assistant
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jeorge Cecilio Gonzales, Appellant

No. 06-17-00146-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 354th District Court of 

Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 28,368). 

Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief 

Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Jeorge Cecilio Gonzales, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 6, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### A. M. CAMERON CO., Inc. v. SHAW’S DEPARTMENT STORE.

No. 7404.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Jan. 31, 1950.

Eugene J. Coen, Shreveport, for appellant.

Campbell & Campbell, Minden, for ap-pellee.

KENNON, Judge.

This is a suit to recover from defendant $270.20 allegedly due plaintiff as the price of ten dozen pairs of ladies’ silk hose sold and delivered to defendant.

Defendant in answer admitted placing an order for the hosiery in October, 1946, but set forth that delivery did not occur until the latter part of November; that in the meantime, the price of merchandise of this character had declined and purchase of similar merchandise had been made from other sources, and that the hose had con*193sequently been returned to the. plaintiff company.

The District Court rendered judgment rejecting the demand for the full price of the hose, hut reserved to plaintiff the right to claim damages based upon the difference between the purchase price and the value of the merchandise on the date of its return. Plaintiff has appealed.

Defendant in October, 1946 signed an order for the merchandise which had not been canceled prior to its shipment on November 21, 1946. Therefore, there was. a valid contract of sale existing between the parties at the time the merchandise was received by defendant. We further find that defendant’s return of the order to plaintiff on December 20, 1946 was without plaintiff’s authorization.

We agree' with counsel that plaintiff in the case before us is entitled to recover damages against defendant for breach of the contract by virtue of the buyer’s unauthorized return of the shipment. The measure of damages where there has been a breach of the contract of sale is the difference in the price stipulated in the contract and the market price at which the goods can be readily sold. Cyrus W. Scott Mfg. Co. v. Stoma, 10 La.App. 469, 121 So. 335.

This rule was recently applied by this Court to the breach of a contract to purchase silk hose in the case of Prestige, Inc., v. Schwartzberg, Inc., 38 So.2d 169. Plaintiff cites the case in brief, quoting the syllabus as follows: “Where buyer attempted to cancel order for silk hose on ground that the hose was of poor quality, but the quality of the hose was as good as or better than any comparable product, and real reason was that market for silk hose had sharply declined, seller was entitled to recover damages for breach of contract for buyer’s refusal to accept shipments of the hose.”

Since the record does not contain evidence of what the value of the merchandise was at the time of its return to plaintiff, we agree with the District Court that the proper judgment was to reject plaintiff’s demand for the full purchase price, reserving to it the right to recover in a separate action the difference between the contract price and the value of the merchandise at the time of its return to the seller.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed. Costs of the District Court to be borne equally by the parties; costs of appeal to be borne by appellant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Hews Company, LLC

v. Civil No. 04-cv-292-JM

Bruce Barnaby and

Barnaby’s Truck & Equipment, Inc.

O R D E R

 A hearing on plaintiff’s motions for period payments and to

change defendant’s LLC intent is scheduled for October 24, 2005

at 9:30 a.m. The defendants are ordered to provide financial

affidavits to plaintiff’s counsel no longer than ten (10) days

before the hearing. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: September 20, 2005

cc: Timothy J. Bryant, Esq.

 Peter G. Callaghan, Esq.

 William S. Gannon, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00292-JM Document 61 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices 

# Order

February 2, 2021

161241

- 2(23)

PEGASUS WIND, LLC,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161241

- 2

COA: 351532; 351644

Tuscola CC: 19

- 030703

- AA;

19

- 030723

- AA

JUNIATA TOWNSHIP, JUNIATA TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and JUNIATA

TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION,

Defendants

- Appellants,

and

GREG AND CHERYL ACKERMAN,

LYLE ACKERMAN, ROGER AND DIAN

ADAMS, TIMOTHY AND KRISTI BARBER,

BRADLEY AND GINGER BARNES, CAISTER

FARMS, INC., STELLA CLINESMITH,

CUMMINGS

- MONVILLE FARMS LLC,

ZELEM AND BARBARA ESTERLINE, FARM

MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, STAN AND

RITA FESSLER III, JOSEPH AND DEBRA

FESSLER, STEVEN FINDLAY, GARNER

LAND CO LLC, RONALD AND INGRID

GOEBEL, GOODCHILD FAMILY FARMS,

LLC, JANSO N LAND COMPANY, LARACHA

INVESTMENTS, LLC, CORI MILLER, SUE

LYNN NEARING, VIRGIL NEARING,

BRANDON PALM, HEIKI PALM,

PARAMOUNT ENTERPRISES LAND, PAUL

DOST FARMS, LLC, ROBERT PIKE, DAVID

AND KAREN PRATT, LARRY RUCKLE,

RUSSELL FAMILY LAND COMPANY, LLC,

STARKEY FARMS, INC., ELAINE STOICK,

GORDON AND DONNA TEDFORD, KELLY

WRIGHT, FRED AND ALBERTA HESS, JAN

AND BARB HESS, TOM HESS, HARLEY

MIKKELSON,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 2, 2021

a0125 2

Clerk v

JUNIATA TOWNSHIP, JUNIATA TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and JUNIATA

TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 27,

2020 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from SEC Form
10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000081033
<NAME> PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>1000000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                     PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          10,967
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>           730
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              1,311
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            1,671
<OTHER-ASSETS>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     14,679
<COMMON>                            2,563
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>             594
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 1,382
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>      4,539
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 588
<PREFERRED>                            95
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                4,123
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                      0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>               0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>        822
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>          18
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>               0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>            50
<LEASES-CURRENT>                        0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>      4,444
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      14,679
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>           1,789
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                  117   <F1>
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          1,415
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          1,530
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>               259
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                      2
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>        261
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>              104   <F2>
<NET-INCOME>                          157
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>             2
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>         155
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              125
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>              76
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                633
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
<FN>
<F1>Federal  Income Taxes for Other Income of $2 was incorporated into this line
item for FDS  purposes.  In the  referenced  financial  statements,  Total Other
Income and Deductions are net of the above  applicable  Federal and State income
taxes.   
<F2>Total  interest  expense  includes  Preferred  Securities  Dividend
Requirements.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Portsmouth Square, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, John V. Winfield, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
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: May 13, 2010                              /s/ John V. Winfield
                                                ----------------------------
                                                John V. Winfield, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Portsmouth Square, Inc. and will be retained by Portsmouth Square,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]