alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CONLEY et al. v. HENRY et al.

No. 6092.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Oct. 31, 1941.

Arthur C. Watson, of Natchitoches, for appellants.

John G. Gibbs, of Natchitoches, for ap-pellees.

DREW, Judge.

This case was argued and submitted to this court in May of this year. After argument it was learned that the record, which had been withdrawn from the court by one of the counsel in the case, was missing. We were requested to give time for the record to be located and returned here.

On September 29th past, attorneys for appellants filed the following application:

> “Now into Court through the undersigned counsel comes J. H. Henry, Jr., defendant-appellant in the above entitled and numbered cause and with respect represents and shows the Court:

1. “That judgment was rendered against him in this matter on July 19th, 1939, which judgment was duly signed by Judge James W. Jones of the Tenth Judicial District Court on July 26, 1939. That from this judgment appearer took a suspensive appeal to this Honorable Court.

2. “That this appeal and entire record were properly filed _with this Court on or before September 17, 1939.

3. “That the said record has now been lost, misplaced or inadvertently destroyed. That a diligent search has been made for same, but to no avail, as the record has not been found.

4. “But that the record consists entirely of the pleadings and written exhibits which written exhibits were certified copies of the minutes and judgment in a previous case, which was entitled Dennis Roque V. J. H. Henry, Jr., No. 5929 1 on the docket of the Court of Appeal. That no testimony was introduced in the trial of this case whatsoever and that it will he a relatively simple matter to reconstruct the record.

5. “That in the event counsel are unable to reconstruct the record that the parties should be allowed and ordered to file new pleadings and the matter tried de novo.

“Wherefore appearer prays that this Honorable Court do remand this matter to the District Court of Natchitoches for the *794purpose of having the record reconstructed and prays in the alternative that if the said record cannot be reconstructed that this matter be tried de novo and the parties allowed and ordered to file new pleadings in the matter and prays for all general and equitable relief and for all orders necessary and proper in the premises.”

It is clear that we cannot render a decision in the case without the record before us. Therefore the application to remand is granted as prayed for.

1

189 So. 358.
##### 



Exhibit 23.1



---



##### 



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
First Charter Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
First Charter Corporation on Form S-3 (No. 333-60641) and on Forms S-8 (Nos.
333-95003, 333-66362, 333-66354, 333-57710, 333-54019, 333-54021, 333-54023,
33-60949, and 333-71497), of our report dated January 14, 2003, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of First Charter Corporation and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income,
shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2002, included in the 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K
of First Charter Corporation. Our report dated January 14, 2003 refers to the
fact that on January 1, 2002, the Corporation adopted Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 142 Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, and on
October 1, 2002, the Corporation adopted Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 145  Rescission of FASB Statements No. 4, 44, and 64, Amendment
of FASB Statement No. 13, and Technical Corrections and Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 147 Acquisitions of Certain Financial Institutions.

| |         
| | --------
| | KPMG LLP

Charlotte, North Carolina
March 6, 2003
II

Calendar No. 395

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1366

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 11, 2002

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

MAY 23, 2002

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment

AN ACT

To designate the United States Post Office building located

at 3101 West Sunflower Avenue in Santa Ana, California, as the ‘‘Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HECTOR G. GODINEZ POST

4 OFFICE BUILDING.

5 The United States Post Office building located at

6 3101 West Sunflower Avenue in Santa Ana, California,

7 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Hector G. Godinez

8 Post Office Building’’.
2

•HR 1366 RS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, regulation, map, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

4 States Post Office building referred to in section 1 shall

5 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Hector G. Godinez

6 Post Office Building’’.

Calendar No. 395

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1366

AN ACT

To designate the United States Post Office building

located at 3101 West Sunflower Avenue in SantaAna, California, as the ‘‘Hector G. Godinez PostOffice Building’’.

MAY 23, 2002

Reported without amendment
EXHIBIT 23  CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 and S-3 (No. 33-51744, 33-65239, 333-12189,
333-62187, 333-84219, 333-38884, 333-68760, 333-68762, 333-89317, 333-86809 and 333-89319) of
MSC.Software Corporation of our report dated February 22, 2002, except as to the last paragraph of Note 21, which is as of March 15, 2002, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheet of MSC.Software Corporation as of December 31, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears
in the December 31, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K of MSC.Software Corporation.

| |  | /s/ KPMG LLP
| |  | ------------

Costa
Mesa, California
March 29, 2002

---

QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Tracy Adams, et al.

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00425-JL

J. Myers Builders, Inc.

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on

November 21, 2008.

The Discovery Plan (document no. 8) is approved as

submitted, with the following changes:

• Close of discovery: August 7, 2009

• Summary judgment: September 1, 2009

The defendant verbally clarified ¶8 of its Answer; the

plaintiff did not request a formal amendment.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: November 21, 2008

cc: John P. Sherman, Esq.

William E. Gericke, Esq.

Andrew D. Dunn, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00425-JL Document 10 Filed 11/21/08 Page 1 of 1
7

A.3. Volume of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersBillions of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1995...... 84.1 12.7 5.2 27.3 2.7 36.1 5.4 8.3 16.0 54.4 1996...... 87.3 10.6 4.0 35.9 2.4 34.5 5.0 7.1 13.9 61.3 1997...... 71.4 8.0 5.3 23.6 2.7 31.9 5.0 7.4 15.8 43.3 1998...... 68.0 6.1 4.4 25.2 4.9 27.5 4.5 6.7 14.9 41.9 1999...... 60.6 4.9 4.2 28.4 5.2 18.0 4.2 6.6 15.1 34.9 2000...... 50.2 4.8 4.5 27.6 3.9 9.3 4.2 6.5 12.6 26.8 2001...... 51.6 5.1 4.7 21.7 4.1 16.1 3.7 5.9 12.6 29.3 2002...... 56.2 5.3 5.1 28.8 2.9 14.1 4.1 6.3 14.3 31.5 2003...... 51.1 7.9 4.5 24.5 4.3 10.0 3.4 5.3 13.5 28.8 2004...... 64.4 6.0 6.7 29.9 6.0 15.9 3.3 5.4 13.2 42.5 2005...... 59.3 6.6 5.1 26.9 6.7 14.0 2.9 4.7 12.5 39.2 2006...... 67.9 7.4 6.4 30.3 7.9 15.8 2.8 5.4 14.0 45.7 2003: Q4... 55.2 11.1 6.0 24.1 2.9 11.1 3.3 5.4 14.6 31.9 2004: Q1... 72.2 5.2 5.4 39.7 6.7 15.1 3.1 5.0 14.9 49.1  Q2... 60.2 3.8 4.7 30.2 3.9 17.6 4.0 6.5 13.0 36.7  Q3... 54.2 2.3 7.3 21.1 5.9 17.6 3.5 5.3 10.3 35.1  Q4... 71.0 12.6 9.2 28.6 7.4 13.2 2.6 4.8 14.7 48.9 2005: Q1... 55.2 5.3 5.3 34.4 2.5 7.7 2.4 4.2 13.7 34.8  Q2... 76.6 7.7 3.7 29.9 11.0 24.3 3.8 5.9 12.7 54.1  Q3... 59.1 3.4 6.1 24.4 10.1 15.2 3.2 4.7 12.6 38.7  Q4... 46.4 10.2 5.5 18.8 3.2 8.7 2.2 4.1 11.0 29.1 2006: Q1... 67.0 5.3 6.2 40.2 4.5 10.9 2.9 4.7 14.3 45.1  Q2... 80.2 5.0 6.2 34.8 16.6 17.7 3.3 6.7 15.4 54.7  Q3... 63.5 9.2 7.3 21.8 5.2 20.0 2.6 5.6 12.2 43.2  Q4... 60.8 10.0 6.1 24.5 5.4 14.8 2.3 4.7 14.1 39.7 2007: Q1... 69.6 5.9 5.3 40.0 3.5 14.9 2.3 4.8 13.4 49.1  Q2... 61.7 3.7 4.1 35.0 5.4 13.5 3.4 6.8 16.2 35.3  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
#### In the Matter of Walter Wilkerson, Appellant, v Brion D. Travis, as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 678]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), entered December 28, 2004 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole revoking petitioner’s parole and holding him until his maximum expiration date.

The Board of Parole revoked petitioner’s parole for a third time and ordered that he be held until his maximum expiration date. Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging the Board’s determination, which Supreme Court dismissed, prompting this appeal.

Petitioner’s sole challenge is to the severity of the penalty imposed as a result of his most recent parole revocation hearing. Considering petitioner’s extensive criminal record, his prior parole violations and his failure to take advantage of treatment programs made available to him for his continuing substance abuse problems, we do not find that it was unduly harsh for the Board to order petitioner held until his maximum expiration *836date *(see e.g. Matter of McCloud v New York State Div. of Parole,*277 AD2d 627, 628 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 702 [2001]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

In the Matter of the No. 51278-5-II

Personal Restraint of

KAMARA KAM CHOUAP,

Petitioner.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MELNICK, J. — Kamara Chouap seeks relief from personal restraint resulting from his 

2010 conviction for assault in the second degree.1 The trial court sentenced him to 120 months of 

confinement and 18 months of community custody. That sentence exceeds the statutory maximum 

sentence of 120 months. RCW 9A.20.021(1)(b). 

Chouap argues that he is entitled to have his term of confinement reduced to 102 months 

so he can be allowed to serve his 18-month term of community custody.2 The State concedes that 

Chouap’s sentence exceeds the statutory maximum sentence, but that under In re Personal 

Restraint of McWilliams, 182 Wn.2d 213, 218, 340 P.3d 223 (2014), Chouap is entitled only to the 

 

1 He does not seek relief from his convictions for two counts of attempting to evade a pursuing 

police vehicle.

2 Because Chouap’s judgment and sentence is facially invalid, his petition, which was transferred 

to us by the trial court under CrR 7.8(b), is not time-barred by RCW 10.73.090(1).

Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

June 5, 2018
No. 51278-5-II

2

addition to his judgment and sentence of a Brooks3notation that under no circumstances shall the 

combined terms of confinement and of community custody exceed the statutory maximum 

sentence. 

We agree with the State and remand Chouap’s judgment and sentence for addition of a 

Brooks notation that under no circumstances shall the combined terms of confinement and of 

community custody exceed the statutory maximum sentence.4 

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, 

it is so ordered.

MELNICK, J.

We concur:

JOHANSON, P.J.

SUTTON, J.

 

3

In re Personal Restraint of Brooks, 166 Wn.2d 664, 675, 211 P.3d 1023 (2009).

4 Because Chouap was sentenced before the legislature overruled Brooks by enacting RCW 

9.94A.701(9), Brooks is applicable to him. See McWilliams, 182 Wn.2d at 218.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 7Federal Reserve Bank of: ChicagoFilings received during the week ending February 13, 2010FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodIDA GROVE BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                              4c8Ida Grove Bancshares, Inc., Ida Grove, Iowa, to retain the nonbanking activity of engaging de novo in leasing personal or real property.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not availableM&I MARSHALL & ILSLEY BANK                                                                                              * 18C
#### In the Matter of Patricia A. Snyder, Respondent, v CNA Insurance Companies, Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 482]

*1056Cardona, P.J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered October 15, 2004 in Columbia County, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5) for judicial approval, nunc pro tunc, of a personal injury settlement.

In January 1996, petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident while working for her employer. Petitioner received workers’ compensation benefits from her employer’s insurance carrier, respondent CNA Insurance Companies (hereinafter respondent), as well as first-party benefits pursuant to the no-fault provisions of the Insurance Law. Thereafter, petitioner commenced a third-party negligence action against the driver of the other motor vehicle, which she settled for $32,500. However, petitioner failed to obtain consent of the settlement from respondent, as required pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). Petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding seeking, among other things, judicial approval, nunc pro tunc, of the third-party settlement. Supreme Court approved the settlement, however, this Court reversed on the basis that the supporting documentation was insufficient and we remitted the matter for further proceedings (306 AD2d 677, 678-679 [2003]). Following petitioner’s submission of additional documentation, petitioner again sought judicial approval of the third-party settlement, which Supreme Court granted, prompting this appeal.

Supreme Court reviewed all the relevant factors in exercising its discretionary authority to grant petitioner’s request. Notably, petitioner submitted evidence which suggested that it would have been difficult to prove that she had suffered a serious injury as a result of the accident. Furthermore, it is apparent that respondent suffered no prejudice from petitioner’s delay in seeking approval *(see Neblett v Davis,*260 AD2d 559, 560 [1999]). We note that an application for a nunc pro tunc order approving a third-party settlement must normally be made within three months of the settlement date *(see*Workers' Compensation Law § 29 [5]). Under all the circumstances herein, we, however, do not conclude that Supreme Court abused its broad discretion in approving this settlement *(see Severino v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,*238 AD2d 837, 838 [1997]; *Borrowman v Insurance Co. of N. Am.,*198 AD2d 891 [1993]).

Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2089 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2089

  To amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to continue for the 
    2001 crop year the eligibility of producers for loan deficiency 
    payments when the producers, although not eligible to obtain a 
        marketing assistance loan, produce a contract commodity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 6, 2001

Mr. Smith of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                    to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to continue for the 
    2001 crop year the eligibility of producers for loan deficiency 
    payments when the producers, although not eligible to obtain a 
        marketing assistance loan, produce a contract commodity.

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

SECTION 1. LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS FOR CONTRACT COMMODITY PRODUCERS 
              INELIGIBLE FOR MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS.

    Section 135(a)(2) of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 
U.S.C. 7235(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``2000 crop year'' and 
inserting ``2000 and 2001 crop years''.
                                 <all>
```
3.12 U.S. RESERVE ASSETS

Millions of dollars, end of period

Asset 2002 2003 2004

2005 2006

June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.p

1 Total ................................. 79,006 85,938 86,824 76,594 74,620 72,243 71,273 70,218 68,773 65,125 65,593

2 Gold stock1 ............................ 11,043 11,043 11,045 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,043r 11,043

3 Special drawing rights2,3 ................. 12,166 12,638 13,582 11,243 11,206 8,304 8,245 8,224 8,180 8,210 8,302

4 Reserve position in International Monetary Fund2 ............................ 21,979 22,535 19,479 15,274 13,438 13,336 13,245 12,720 12,097 8,036 7,639

5 Foreign currencies4 ..................... 33,818 39,722 42,718 39,036 38,935 39,563 38,742 38,234 37,445 37,839 38,609

Note: The data presented in this table are available in the monthly statistical release ‘‘U.S.

Reserve Assets; Foreign Official Assets Held at Federal Reserve Banks,’’ on the Board’s

website at www.federalreserve.gov/releases.

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 have also 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 2002 2003 2004

2005 2006

June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.p

1 Deposits .............................. 136 162 80 103 83 81 96 88 82 83 83

Held in custody

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 678,106 845,080 1,041,215 1,058,972 1,070,625 1,075,098 1,056,594 1,060,857 1,073,710 1,069,014 1,080,198

3 Earmarked gold3 ....................... 9,045 8,971 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967

Note: The data presented in this table are available in the monthly statistical release ‘‘U.S.

Reserve Assets; Foreign Official Assets Held at Federal Reserve Banks,’’ on the Board’s

website at www.federalreserve.gov/releases.

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2169 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2169

   To extend the deadline under part I of the Federal Power Act for 
commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of 
                                Nevada.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 2001

   Mr. Wynn introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the deadline under part I of the Federal Power Act for 
commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of 
                                Nevada.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECT.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project 
numbered 10756, the Commission shall, at the request of the licensee 
for the project and after reasonable notice, in accordance with the 
good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of that 
section and the Commission's procedures under that section, extend the 
time period during which the licensee is required to commence the 
construction of the project for 3 consecutive 2-year periods.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect on the 
expiration of the extension issued by the Commission for Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission project numbered 10756.
    (c) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the period required for 
commencement of construction of the project described in subsection (a) 
has expired prior to the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Commission shall reinstate the license effective as of the date of its 
expiration and the first extension authorized under subsection (a) 
shall take effect on the date of such expiration.
                                 <all>
```