alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
181 La. 970

#### Samuel SOKOLSKY v. EQUITABLE HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION.

No. 33056.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 1935.

Rehearing Denied April 1,1935.

Spearing & McClendon, D. H. Theard, Scott E. Beer, Weiss, Yarrut & Stich, Legier, Mc-Enerny & Waguespack, Carroll, McCall & Plough, A. D. Danziger, and P. H. Stern, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

George A. Dreyfous, of New Orleans, for appellee.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

This is one of the cases mentioned in the opinion rendered today in the case of Camille V. Treigle v. Acme Homestead Association (La. Sup.) 166 So. 637.

For the reasons given in that case, the judgment appealed from is annulled and reversed, and the demand of the plaintiff is rejected and his suit dismissed at his cost.

ODOM, J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            58,217
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                           35,306
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                             34,652
<EQUITIES>                                      20,900
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 119,076
<CASH>                                          17,547
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               2,508
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          11,327
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,270
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 57,988
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             46,558
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 12,592
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,866
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,072
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   202,270
<PREMIUMS>                                      81,220
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              4,508
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               1,841
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   3,667
<BENEFITS>                                      50,866
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            39,156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    902
<INCOME-TAX>                                       164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                738
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       738
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  52,708
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 57,988
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Daniel RUCKER, Petitioner, v. Lewis S. TOLLETT, Warden, Respondent.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

Oct. 13, 1971.

Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court Jan. 3, 1972.

*208Dalton L. Townsend, Knoxville, for petitioner.

David M. Pack, Atty. Gen., Thomas E. Fox, Deputy Atty. Gen., Nashville, for respondent.

OPINION

WALKER, Presiding Judge.

Without an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge dismissed this petition for postcon-viction relief. The petitioner, Daniel Rucker, appeals.

The sole question presented by the petition is that the official court reporter was permitted to testify at the trial as a witness to the voluntariness of the petitioner’s confession which he had previously taken as the reporter. He claims the reporter’s presence in the courtroom while other witnesses testified violated the petitioner’s constitutional rights.

The exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom is not a matter of right, but is within the discretion of the trial judge. State ex rel. Phillips v. Henderson, 220 Tenn. 701, 423 S.W.2d 489; Nance v. State, 210 Tenn. 328, 358 S.W.2d 327. This assignment raises no constitutional question and it is overruled. See State ex rel. Reed v. Heer, 218 Tenn. 338, 403 S.W.2d 310.

Rucker also assigns as error the failure of the trial judge to grant an evi-dentiary hearing. He contends that T.C.A. 40-3810 authorizes a hearing if he has had no prior one and that in this case he has raised a substantial question. The record shows that this petitioner has had a prior evidentiary hearing. We do not think this statute requires a hearing for meritless petitions.

He further contends that he should receive relief because the district attorney general filed his answer 88 days after the petition when he was allowed only 30 days. Rucker was not prejudiced by this delay.

All assignments are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

RUSSELL, J., concur.

O’BRIEN, Judge

(concurring).

I concur with the majority opinion in this case, however, I consider it pertinent to point out that TCA Sec. 40-3814, is mandatory as it applies to the duties of the District Attorney General. See Brown v. State, Tenn.Crim.App., 445 S.W.2d 669. In this case the trial court allotted 30 days in which the District Attorney General was to file responsive pleadings. It appears that it was some 88 days after the amended petition was filed before an answer was submitted. No reason for the delay appears in this record.

It is as much the duty of counsel for the State, and for the defense, as it is that of the court, to expedite court proceedings. It has become a popular trend in recent times to criticize the courts for alleged delay in their proceedings without, in most instances, consideration or thought for the tremendous increase in work load with which they have become burdened. While, as stated in the majority opinion, the delay in this instance did not prejudice defendant, it is clearly apparent that there are many situations where some prejudice could exist. It is incumbent upon all agencies involved to act with the greatest diligence in order to dispose of these matters with the least possible delay.
4vAO 440 (Rev . 8/01) S~¢nmons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

District of NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dynamic Network Services, Inc ., 1 Sundial

Avenue, Suite 301, Manchester NH 03103

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

V.

Timothy Wilde , 1175 Lake Boulevard,

No. 105, Davis, CA 95616

CASE NUMBER: 1 :06-cv-37-JM

TO: (hh ame and address of Defendant)

Timothy Wild e

1175 Lake Boulevard

No . 105

Davis, CA 9561 6

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve on PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY (name and address)

Christopher Cole, Esquire

Sheehan Phinney Bass + Green,

Professional Associatio n

1000 Elm Street

Post Office Box 3701

Manchester NH 03105-370 1

an answer to the complaint which is served on you with this summons, within 20 davs after service

of this summons on you, exclusive of the dav of service . If vou fail to do so, .judgment by default will be taken against you

for the relief demanded in the complaint. Any answer that you serve on the parties to this action must be filed with the

Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service .

with ECF Notice and

Notice of Assignment to the

Magistrate Judge attache d

February 6, 200 6

)ATE

Case 1:06-cv-00037-JM Document 3 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 1 of 2
RSAO 440 (Rev . 8101) Summons in a Civil Action

RETURN OF SERVICE

Service of the Summons and complaint was made by me U

DATE

NAME OI SERVER (PRIA'1) TFILE

Check one box below to indicate a. ro. riate method o servic e

❑ Served personally upon the defendant. Place where serve d

❑ Left copies thereof at the defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age an d

discretion then residing therein .

Name of person with whom the summons and complaint were left:

❑ Returtied unexecuted :

❑ Other (speeify):

STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEE S

TRAVEL SERVICES TOTAL $0

.00

DECLARATION OF SERVE R

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the tJnited States of America that the foregoing information

contained in the Return of Serviee and Statement of Setvice Fees is true and correct.

Executed on

Date Stgnature ofServer

Address of Server

(1) As to who may serve a summons see Rede 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .

Case 1:06-cv-00037-JM Document 3 Filed 02/06/2006 Page 2 of 2
Blueprint






Exhibit 10.01(a)







Schedule identifying agreements substantially identical
to

 



the form of Capital Increase Agreement filed as Exhibit 10.01
hereto

 


 

 


	

	
 
Subscribed
Capital of ACM Research (Shanghai), Inc. 

 


	
Investor

	
 
Purchase
Price (RMB)

 

	
 
Capital
(%)

 


	
Hai Feng Investment
Holding Limited

	
  1,538,461.54 

	
  0.413%


	
Jiaxing Haitong
Xuchu Equity Investment Fund Partnership (Limited
Partnership)

	
  2,307,692.31 

	
  0.619%


	
Shanghai GP Lingang
Hi-tech Fund Partnership (Limited Partnership)

	
  1,923,076.92 

	
  0.516%


	
Wuxi Taihu Guolian
Emerging Industry Investment Enterprise (Limited
Partnership)

	
  1,923,076.92 

	
  0.516%


	
XinGang (Shanghai)
Management Consulting Limited Partnership

	
  727,115.38 

	
  0.195%


	
XinShi (Shanghai)
Management Consulting Limited Partnership

	
  1,781,923.08 

	
  0.478%


	
XinWei (Shanghai)
Management Consulting Limited Partnership

	
  4,756,153.85 

	
  1.276%
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-113-01-SM

Joanne S. Rousseau

O R D E R

Defendant Rousseau’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 16). Trial has been rescheduled for the November

2005 trial period. Defendant Rousseau shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than October 4, 2005. On the filing of such waiver, her continuance

shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: October 20, 2005 at 10:00 a.m.

Jury Selection: November 1, 2005 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00113-SM Document 17 Filed 09/26/05 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

September 26, 2005

cc: Joseph Caulfield, Esq.

Robert Veiga, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00113-SM Document 17 Filed 09/26/05 Page 2 of 2
PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD
                              FORM 10-Q

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
BALANCE SHEET

(Dollars in Thousands)

                                             March 31,   December 31,
                                                 2000           1999

ASSETS
     <S>                                          <C>            <C>
     Rentals receivable under capital lease       $9,150         $9,150
     Cash                                             57             59

                                                  $9,207         $9,209


LIABILITIES and SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY

     Liabilities:
          Accounts payable and
            accrued liabilities                   $   20         $   25

     Shareholder's equity:

          Shares of beneficial interest, at
            no par value, 1,510,000 shares
            issued and outstanding                 9,145          9,145
          Income retained in business                 42             39

               Total Shareholders' Equity          9,187          9,184

               Total Liabilities and
                 Shareholders' Equity             $9,207         $9,209
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54205-54206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21805]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the 
Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials will be held November 
18-19, 2008, at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, 
National Harbor, Maryland. On November 18, the meeting will begin at 8 
a.m. and end at 3:45 p.m. On November 19, the meeting will begin at 
8:30 a.m. and end at 4 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs on the administration of national cemeteries, soldiers' lots 
and plots, the selection of new national cemetery sites, the erection 
of appropriate memorials, and the adequacy of Federal burial benefits.
    On November 18, the Committee will receive updates on National 
Cemetery Administration issues. On November 19, the Committee will tour 
the historic Congressional Cemetery, located at 1801 E. Street in 
Southeast, Washington, DC, and reconvene at the hotel for a business 
session (beginning at 1 p.m.), which will include discussions of 
Committee recommendations, future meeting sites, and potential agenda 
topics for future meetings.
    Time will not be allocated for receiving oral presentations from 
the public. Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting 
should contact Mr. Michael Nacincik, Designated Federal Officer, at 
(202) 461-6240. The Committee will accept written comments. Comments 
may be transmitted electronically to the Committee at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#521f3b313a33373e7c3c1224337c353d24"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cb86a2a8a3aaaea7e5a58bbdaae5aca4bd">[email protected]</span></a> 
or mailed to the National Cemetery Administration (41C2), 810 Vermont 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. In the public's communications with 
the

[[Page 54206]]

Committee, the writers must identify themselves and state the 
organizations, associations, or persons they represent.

    Dated: September 12, 2008.
    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-21805 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Darren Starr

v. Civil No. 05-cv-368-JD

Major Dennis Cox, et al.

O R D E R

 Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for spoilation (document

no. 52) is denied. The “incident” which might have been on the

videotape and the disciplinary report was on or about May 6,

2006. Plaintiff did not seek copies on discovery until October

30, 2006. In the interim he had sought the video for a

disciplinary hearing he assumed would occur. However, he was

told on June 1, 2006 that no such hearing was scheduled. The

videotape was reused by October and the disciplinary report lost

or destroyed. Plaintiff made no demand or request to preserve

from May to October from counsel or upper prison management. 

They were unaware until too late and there was no willful

spoilation. 

Plaintiff’s motion (document no. 52) is denied. The 

Case 1:05-cv-00368-JD Document 59 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 2
2

requested traverse has not been filed timely and will not be

considered.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 17, 2007

cc: Darren Starr, pro se

 Mary E. Maloney, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00368-JD Document 59 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 2
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Poolingand Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2018, by and among CREDITSUISSE COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, asSpecial Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as CertificateAdminstrator, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee and PENTALPHASURVEILLANCE LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer withrespect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2018-C14 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 of thisAgreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Servicesdo hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from November1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and 

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilledall of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Monadnock View Holdings, LLC, et al

v. Case No. 05-cv-449-PB

Town of Peterborough, et al

ORDER

Re: Document No. 11, Notice of Disclosure of Circumstance

Ruling: I thank counsel for making me aware of this issue.

Although I served as Senator Rudman’s legal counsel while Roberta

Bass was a director of one of the senator’s regional offices, I

have had no significant contact with her since 1987. Recusal is

not warranted based on the fact that we once worked for the same

employer. Thus, I do not intend to recuse myself from this case.

Any party may ask me to reconsider this ruling by filing a motion

to reconsider within 10 days.

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

U.S. District Judge

Date: February 1, 2006

cc: Douglas W. Macdonald, Esq.

Gregg R. Frame, Esq.

Lisa Lee, Esq.

John Kissinger, Esq.

Lawrence M. Edelman, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00449-PB Document 16 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 1
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906**

**Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersignedofficers of Rand Capital Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2019 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirement ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company. 

Dated: November 7, 2019 

 

/s/ Allen F. Grum
Allen F. Grum, President(Chief Executive Officer)
Dated: November 7, 2019 

 

/s/ Daniel P. Penberthy
Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer(Chief Financial Officer)**
#### Irene TREMBACZEWSKI, also known as Irene Trembacki, as Executrix of the Estate of Joseph Naumowicz, Bill Naumowicz, Frank Naumowicz, Stella Kruscewski and Anna Kulawik Klinger, Appellants, v. Ralph RANGER and Rosalie Ranger, his wife, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

July 6, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 1956.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Florida, ex rel. Percy WEINER, Appellant, v. J. K. ATWOOD, et al., as and constituting the Board of Pharmacy, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

June 18, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1205 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1205

  To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national 
 cemetery for veterans in the Jacksonville, Florida, metropolitan area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2001

  Mr. Stearns (for himself and Mr. Crenshaw) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national 
 cemetery for veterans in the Jacksonville, Florida, metropolitan area.

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

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall establish, 
in accordance with chapter 24 of title 38, United States Code, a 
national cemetery in the Jacksonville, Florida, metropolitan area to 
serve the needs of veterans and their families.
    (b) Consultation in Selection of Site.--Before selecting the site 
for the national cemetery established under subsection (a), the 
Secretary shall consult with--
            (1) appropriate officials of the State of Florida and local 
        officials of the Jacksonville metropolitan area, and
            (2) appropriate officials of the United States, including 
        the Administrator of General Services, with respect to land 
        belonging to the United States in that area that would be 
        suitable to establish the national cemetery under subsection 
        (a).
    (c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the 
establishment of the national cemetery under subsection (a). The report 
shall set forth a schedule for such establishment and an estimate of 
the costs associated with such establishment.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alvin Alston, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Farlo, J.), rendered November 14, 1988, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of allegedly explicit and implicit bolstering testimony and by the prosecutor’s reference to this testimony on summation. To preserve a claim of error on the ground of bolstering *(see, People v Trowbridge,*305 NY 471), the defendant must explicitly state that the basis of his objection is that the testimony constitutes improper bolstering *(see, People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023; *People v West,*56 NY2d 662). Here the defendant did not make any objection to the testimony or the remark on summation now complained of. His claims are *399therefore unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818; *People v Faison,*120 AD2d 744). Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Hooper and O’Brien, JJ., concur.