alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
224 La. 1031

#### SCORSUNE v. STATE.

No. 41307.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 22, 1954.

’ Louis Lyons;'Bossier-City, for plaintiff-appellant.

W. Crosby Pegues, Jr., D. Ross Banister, Philip K. Jones, Baton Rouge, Francis X. Vinet, New Orleans, Louis S. Quinn, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee.

PONDER, Justice.

The plaintiff is appealing from a judgment sustaining exceptions to the jurisdiction of the court ratione personae and immunity of the, State from suit. ■

The plaintiff brought suit against the State through the Department of Highways to recover $5,000 for a strip of land alleged to have been appropriated by the Department of Highways, without, his consent and without compensation, and for damages occasioned by the taking and to annul a right of way. deed alleged to have been given by the plaintiff to the Department of Highways without consideration and containing no specific description of the property conveyed. The State of Louisiana through the Department of Highways interposed exceptions to the jurisdiction of the court ratione personae and that the state was immune from suit because its consent had not been obtained.

The petition is inartistically drawn but it is apparent that the suit was directed against the Department' of Highways for the reason that the citation .and service of the petition was made only on the Department.

The 'defendant contends that'this' is a suit against the .State of Louisiana and that if the State is not immune from suit that it must be sued in East Baton Rouge Parish,

In our opinion the suit- is not against- the State proper but against the‘ agency, Department of Highways, for value' of property and damágé occasioned by the taking in an alleged appropriation made by this ágency and to annul a right of way deed given to it.

Private property cannot be taken or damaged for public purposes without *558adequate compensation..- Article 1, Section 2 of the Louisiana 'Constitution of .1921. This is not an action ex delicto and the rules applying to those actions are not applicable. Legislative authorization to bring suit against the Department of Highways is not required in'suits involving'appropriation of lands for public purposes by that agency. Booth v. Louisiana Highway Commission, 171 La., 1096, 133 So. 169. See also Angelle v. State, 212 La. 1069, 34 So.2d 321, 2 A.L.R.2d 666.

It is not contended herein that the Department of Highways cannot be sued at the situs of the property alleged to have been taken.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment is reversed and set aside, the plaintiff’s suit is reinstated and the case is remanded to be proceeded with according- to law and consistent with the views herein expressed.'
Skip to Content
Release dates
About
Current release
*Other formats:*
 ASCII (48 KB)
PDF (115 KB)
CSV (103 KB)

----

**March 2003**

Section A
Section B

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable (CSV) format contain all available historical data.Section CReserve Bank Surveys of Farm Credit Conditions and Farm Land Values   C.1. Non-real-estate Farm Lending Compared with a Year EarlierASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (17 KB)  C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next QuarterASCII (11 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.3. Indicators of Relative Credit AvailabilityASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (14 KB)  C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (10 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (6 KB)  C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (1 KB)  C.6. Trends in Farm Real Estate Values and Loan VolumeASCII (7 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.7. Trends in Farm Income and ExpendituresASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (7 KB)Release dates |AboutCurrent release*Other formats:* ASCII (48 KB) |PDF (115 KB) |CSV (103 KB)
Statistical releases
Home |Economic research and dataAccessibility |Contact Us**Last update: March 31, 2003**
#### ANCHOR CASUALTY COMPANY v. HUNT TOOL COMPANY.

No. 3214.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 28, 1950.

Patin & Patin, Lake Charles, for appellant.

St. Clair Adams & Son, New Orleans (P. A. Bienvenu, New Orleans, of counsel), for appellee.

DORE, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated cases of Benoit, Holloway and Anchor Casualty Company v. Hunt Tool Company, La.App., 45 So.2d 512, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

ELLIS, J. (Reasons given in Benoit case, 45 So.2d 512), dissenting.
Case 1:06-cr-00072-SM   Document 26   Filed 03/13/09   Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph Vaillancourt

a/k/a Bryan Bernard

v. Civil No. 06-cv-438-JD

Bernie Campbell, et al.

O R D E R

As the docket reflects in this matter, the plaintiff has

inundated the Clerk's office with pleadings, letters and requests

to "retain" evidence/discovery for him. Despite numerous

admonitions from the Clerk's office to refrain from filing

evidence/discovery unrelated to a specific pleading, on June 7,

2007, the plaintiff again submitted a four-inch ream of

discovery/evidence. When Clerk's office staff assembled the

documents for return to the plaintiff, they apparently

inadvertently returned pleadings that the plaintiff had filed on

the same date. Those documents were an Objection to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated May 3, 2007,

and an Addendum to that Objection.

By order dated June 11, 2007 (document no. 202), the court

approved the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. In

its order, the court noted that the plaintiff had not objected to

the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff has resubmitted the

previously returned Objection and Addendum to Objection to the

Case 1:06-cv-00438-JD Document 227 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 3
2

Report and Recommendation at issue and has effectively requested

that the court vacate its order approving the Report and

Recommendation and review the matter de novo.

Because the Clerk's office apparently did inadvertently

return the pleadings at issue to the plaintiff and they were not

before the court when it considered the Report and Recommendation

at issue, the court vacates its order approving the Report and

Recommendation (document no. 202) and will consider the matter de

novo.

Having reviewed the plaintiff's submissions, the court finds

the plaintiff's arguments to lack merit and approves the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated May 3, 2007

(document no. 164). The court also notes that the Objection and

Addendum, which were submitted on June 7, 2007, were untimely

filed. The motion for preliminary injunction (document no. 38)

is denied.

The court notes that the plaintiff's voluminous filings have

done little to advance the cause of his case. The plaintiff

would be well advised to concentrate on his principle claims and

Case 1:06-cv-00438-JD Document 227 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 3
3

 present them in a clear fashion. The court focuses on the

quality of what is filed and not the quantity.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

June 26, 2007

cc: Nancy J. Smith, Esquire

Nancy Sue Tierney, Esquire

Joseph Vaillancourt, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00438-JD Document 227 Filed 06/26/07 Page 3 of 3
1. Gold held ‘‘under earmark’’ at Federal Reserve Banks for foreign and international

accounts is not included in the gold stock of the United States; see table 3.13, line 3. Gold

stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.

2. Special drawing rights (SDRs) are valued according to a technique adopted by the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) in July 1974. Values are based on a weighted average of

exchange rates for the currencies of member countries. From July 1974 through December

1980, sixteen currencies were used; since January 1981, five currencies have been used. U.S.

SDR holdings and reserve positions in the IMF also have been valued on this basis since July

1974.

3. Includes allocations of SDRs by the International Monetary Fund on Jan. 1 of the year

indicated, as follows: 1970—$867 million; 1971—$717 million; 1972—$710 million; 1979—

$1,139 million; 1980—$1,152 million; 1981—$1,093 million; plus net transactions in SDRs.

4. Valued at current market exchange rates.

3.13 FOREIGN OFFICIAL ASSETS HELD AT FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS1

Millions of dollars, end of period

Asset 1995 1996 1997

1998 1999

Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Mayp

1 Deposits .............................. 386 167 457 154 211 167 233 200 166 260 157

Held in custody

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 522,170 638,049 620,885 588,768 608,060 607,574 612,670 615,139 610,649 606,662 606,579

3 Earmarked gold3 ........................ 11,702 11,197 10,763 10,403 10,355 10,343 10,343 10,347 10,347 10,340 10,340

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional

organizations.

2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury

securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.

3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not

included in the gold stock of the United States.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Charles E. Glenn

v. Civil No. 06-cv-99-PB

Hillsborough County Department

of Corrections, et al

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated October 3, 2006, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

November 13, 2006 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Charles E. Glenn, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00099-JD Document 23 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Agency for International Development

      ( print page 55811)    
Pursuant to the Food for Peace Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 480, as amended), notice is hereby given that the Draft Food for Peace Pub. L. 480 Title II Program Policies and Proposal Guidelines (FY 09) are being made available to interested parties for the required thirty (30) day comment period. 

                    The draft guidelines may be found at                     *http://www.usaid.gov/​our_​work/​humanitarian_​assistance/​ffp/​*. Individuals who wish to receive a hard copy of these draft guidelines should contact: Office of Food for Peace, U.S. Agency for International Development, RRB 7.06-136, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20523-7600. Individuals who have questions or comments on the draft guidelines should contact both Juli Majernik (at the above address, by phone at (202) 712-4088, or by e-mail at                     *jmajernik@usaid.gov)*                     and copy AMEX International, Inc., at                     *ffpdocs@amexdc.com*. The thirty day comment period will begin on the date that this announcement is published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

Dale Skoric, 

Office of Food for Peace, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E8-22036 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-182-01-JD

Waika Arroyo

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

25) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. 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. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: July 17, 2007

cc: Harry Batchelder, Jr., Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00182-JD Document 26 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 1
#### OUACHITA PARISH POLICE JURY v. NEW BRUNSWIG FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 5359.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 1, 1937.

Rehearing. Denied June 30, 1937.

Writ of Certiorari and Review Denied Nov. 2, 1937.

Deutsch & Kerrigan & Burke, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Frank W. Hawthorne and Theus, Gris-ham, Davis &' Leigh, all of Monroe, and St. Clair Adams & Son, of New Orleans, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

This is a companion case to suit styled Ouachita Parish Police Jury v. Northern Insurance Company of New York, No. 5360 on the docket of this court, 176 So. 639, in which a decision was rendered this day. The facts and issues are the same.

For the reasons assigned in case No. 5360, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs.
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




June 2023


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: November 16, 2023
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 35.11  LOGO

CommercialMortgageServicing D1050-084, 8th Fl
401 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334 ANNUAL
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2018, by
and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee,
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to DBGS
2018-C1 Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:  1.
A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from October 1, 2018 through
December 31, 2018 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and  2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.  LOGO Leslie Hayton Managing
Director Wells Fargo Bank  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


LOGO
Ex. 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
        PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


     Each of the undersigned hereby certifies,  for the purposes of section 1350
of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United  States  Code,  as adopted  pursuant  to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of
EduLink,  Inc.  ("EduLink"),  that, to his  knowledge,  the Quarterly  Report of
EduLink on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September  30, 2005,  fully  complies
with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that the  information  contained  in such  report  fairly  presents,  in all
material respects,  the financial condition and results of operation of EduLink.
This  written  statement  is being  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed  original of this statement
has been  provided to EduLink and will be retained by EduLink and  furnished  to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


   Date: November 1, 2006                  By:  /s/ Aleksandr Shvarts
                                           ---------------------------

                                           ALEKSANDR SHVARTS
                                           Chief Executive Officer

   Date: November 1, 2006                  By:  /s/ Gennady Pomeranets
                                           ---------------------------

                                           GENNADY POMERANETS, CPA

                                           Chief Financial Officer
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1488

To restore the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission

over amusement park rides which are at a fixed site, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. TIERNEY, Mrs. MALONEY of

New York, Mr. FRANK, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

of Texas, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. LANTOS, and Ms. CARSON of Indiana) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To restore the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety

Commission over amusement park rides which are at

a fixed site, 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 ‘‘National Amusement

5 Park Ride Safety Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1488 IH

1 SEC. 2. JURISDICTION OVER FIXED SITE AMUSEMENT

2 RIDES.

3 Section 3(a)(1) of the Consumer Product Safety Act

4 (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘, and

5 which is not permanently fixed to a site. Such term does

6 not include such a device which is permanently fixed to

7 a site.’’ and inserting a period.

8 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

9 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Con10 sumer Product Safety Commission $500,000 for each fis11 cal year to enable the Commission to carry out the Con12 sumer Product Safety Act as amended by this Act.

Æ
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1448

AN ACT

To clarify the tax treatment of bonds and other obligations issued by the Government of American

Samoa.

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1448

AN ACT

To clarify the tax treatment of bonds and other obligations

issued by the Government of American Samoa.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1448 EH

1 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TAX TREATMENT OF BONDS

2 AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS ISSUED BY GOV3 ERNMENT OF AMERICAN SAMOA.

4 (a) EXEMPTION OF ALL BONDS FROM INCOME TAX5 ATION BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.—Sub6 section (b) of section 202 of Public Law 98-454 (48

7 U.S.C. 1670) is amended to read as follows:

8 ‘‘(b) EXEMPTION OF ALL BONDS FROM INCOME

9 TAXATION BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.—

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The interest on any bond

11 or other obligation issued by or on behalf of the

12 Government of American Samoa shall be exempt

13 from taxation by the Government of American

14 Samoa and the governments of any of the several

15 States, the District of Columbia, any territory or

16 possession of the United States, and any subdivision

17 thereof.

18 ‘‘(2) EXEMPTION APPLICABLE ONLY TO INCOME

19 TAXES.—The exemption provided by paragraph (1)

20 shall not apply to gift, estate, inheritance, legacy,

21 succession, or other wealth transfer taxes.’’.
3

•HR 1448 EH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 This Act shall apply to obligations issued after the

3 date of the enactment of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives September 24,

2002.

Attest:

Clerk.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1604

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase the floor for

treatment as an extremely low DSH State to 3 percent in fiscal year 2002.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 26, 2001

Mr. BARRETT (for himself and Mrs. WILSON) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase

the floor for treatment as an extremely low DSH State

to 3 percent in fiscal year 2002.

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 ‘‘Medicaid Safety Net

5 Improvement Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN FLOOR FOR TREATMENT AS AN EX7 TREMELY LOW DSH STATE TO 3 PERCENT IN

8 FISCAL YEAR 2002.

9 (a) INCREASE IN DSH FLOOR.—Section 1923(f)(5)

10 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r–4(f)(5)), as
2

•HR 1604 IH

1 added by section 701(a)(2) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and

2 SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000

3 (as enacted into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106–

4 554), is amended—

5 (1) by striking ‘‘fiscal year 1999’’ and inserting

6 ‘‘fiscal year 2000’’;

7 (2) by striking ‘‘August 31, 2000’’ and insert8 ing ‘‘August 31, 2001’’;

9 (3) by striking ‘‘1 percent’’ each place it ap10 pears and inserting ‘‘3 percent’’; and

11 (4) by striking ‘‘fiscal year 2001’’ and inserting

12 ‘‘fiscal year 2002’’.

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

14 subsection (a) take effect on October 1, 2001, and apply

15 to DSH allotments under title XIX of the Social Security

16 Act for fiscal year 2002 and each fiscal year thereafter.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-11-01/02/03-SM

Tai Tuan Nguyen,

Nu T. Tran, and

Quoc My Tran

C O R R E C T E D O R D E R

Defendant Nu Tran’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 16). Trial has been rescheduled for the June 2007

trial period. Defendant Nu Tran shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than March 23, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, this 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 defendants in a speedy trial, 

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

unreasonably deny defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: May 24, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: June 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00011-SM Document 19 Filed 02/22/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

February 22, 2007

cc: James D. Gleason, Esq.

Michael Iacopino, Esq.

Michael R. Smith, Esq. 

Jennifer C. Davis, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00011-SM Document 19 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 2