alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FLUKER FARMS, Inc. v. JAMES.

No. 3811.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 22, 1954.

Rehearing Denied April 26, 1954.

Writ of Certiorari Granted May 31, 1954.

Ponder & Ponder, Amite, for appellant.

Reid, Burch & Reid/Amite, for appellee.

LOTTINGER, Judge.

This is a suit for partition by licitation of a certain five acre tract of land situated in the Parish of Tangipahoa, Louisiana. The defendant filed an answer resisting the plaintiff’s demands on various grounds and following trial on the merits, judgment was rendered by the court below ordering a partition by licitation as prayed for. On the same day the judgment was signed, i. e., April 17, 1953, counsel for defendant moved for and was granted a suspensive and/or devolutive appeal returnable to this court. The appeal bond was not executed until May 25, 1953.

The appellee has filed in this court a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that as same is only devolutive, the judgment sought to be appealed from has long since become executory and the power to prevent its execution has been lost. We think counsel’s contention well founded.

It is clear from the character of the bond and the time when it was filed that the appeal would only be a devolutive one. See Grant v. Succession of Grant, 159 La. 535, 105 So. 611.

In Hollingsworth v. Caldwell, 195 La. 30, 196 So. 10, it wás held that a judgment ordering a sale to effect a partition becomes executory ten days after the judgment is signed, and that after the expiration of the delay for a suspensive appeal, all power to oppose and prevent the execution of the judgment has been lost. If the party cast fails to protect his right by suspending the execution of the judgment of partition in the manner prescribed by law, the court can not undo what has already been done by virtue of the judgment, while it was executory’. See also Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., 199 La. 557, 6 So.2d 660 and Levenson v. Chancellor, La.App., 68 So.2d 116, both of which affirm this same principle.

In the motion to dismiss the appeal it' is- set forth that the judgment in this matter has in fact been executed and' the *710property sold at judicial sale. In oral argument, counsel for appellant admitted that the property had been sold in accordance with said judgment and same executed. This being the case, the question presented us is in the words of the Supreme Court in the Pettingill case, supra [199 La. 557, 6 So.2d 662], a moot one as we cannot “undo what has already been done by virtue of the judgment while it was executory, nor grant any order that could be enforced.”

For the reasons assigned the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40637 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. J OS E P AB L O R ODR I GUE Z - CO RD ER O , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 09- C R - 290- 1 B ef ore G A R Z A , D E N N IS, an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e F edera l P u b li c D e fen d e ra p p o in te d to r e p re se n t J o se P a bl o R odri gu ezC o r d e r o (R o d r ig u e z ) h a s m o v e d fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w a n d h a s file d a b r ie f in ac c o r da nc e w i t h A n d er s v . Ca lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 738 ( 196 7) . R odri gu ez ha s not f i l ed a respon se. O u r i n dep en den trevi ew of th e record an d coun sel ’ s bri ef di scl oses n o non f

rivo lou s i ssue f

or app eal . A ccor di n gl y, coun sel ’ s m ot i on f or l eave t o w i t h draw i s G R A N T E D , coun seli s excused f rom f u rt h er r espon sibi l i t i es h e r e in , a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 12, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-40637 Document: 00511027406 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2010
<PAGE>

                                                          Item 6 (a), Exhibit 11



               Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC
           Schedule of Computation of Earnings Per Common Share/Unit
                                For the Periods



                                January 1, 2002   January 1, 2001
                                    through           through
                                 March 31, 2002    March 31, 2002
                                 --------------    --------------
                                  (unaudited)       (unaudited)

Net income (Loss)                  $  (88,010)       $  121,478
                                   ==========        ==========
Weighted Average Number of
 Common Shares/Units
 Outstanding                        4,224,870         4,203,292
                                   ==========        ==========

Earnings (Loss)
 per Common Share/Unit             $    (0.02)       $     0.03
                                   ==========        ==========
#### Johnnie W. HARRIS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 03-3071.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 9, 2003.

*ORDER*

On June 3, 2003, the court issued an order allowing 21 days for Johnnie W. Harris (“Harris”) to notify the court whether he has dismissed his petition for review before the Merit Systems Protection Board. Harris has failed to respond within the time allowed.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

*49(1) This appeal is hereby dismissed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 68 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-63505) and Amendment No. 515 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The
      Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

      /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    September 6, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

___________________________________________

FIDELITY INVESTMENTS LIFE INSURANCE )

COMPANY, FIDELITY INSURANCE AGENCY, )

INC., FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES, LLC )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) Civil Action

v. ) No. 1:05-cv-00083-JD

)

DENNIS RUPP, TIAA-CREF INDIVIDUAL & )

INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES, INC. )

)

Defendants, )

___________________________________________)

STIPULATION AND ORDER

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the undersigned counsel

for Plaintiffs Fidelity Investments Life Insurance Company, Fidelity Insurance Agency, Inc., and

Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC and Defendants Dennis Rupp and TIAA-CREF Individual &

Institutional Services, Inc. that the above-captioned action is dismissed in its entirety with

prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with each party to bear its

own costs, including attorneys’ fees.

SO STIPULATED AND AGREED:

Case 1:05-cv-00083-JD Document 22 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 3
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY; FIDELITY INSURANCE AGENCY,

INC.; AND FIDELITY BROKERAGE

SERVICES, LLC.

By their attorneys,

WIGGIN & NOURIE, P.A.

Dated: August 24, 2005 By: /s/ Donald L. Smith for Thomas J. Pappas

Thomas J. Pappas, Esquire (Bar No. 4111)

670 N. Commercial Street, Suite 305

P.O. Box 808

Manchester, NH 03105-0808

(603) 669-2211

email: tpappas@wiggin-nourie.com

Of Counsel:

Jennifer A. Kenedy, Esquire

Lord Bissell & Brook LLP

115 S. LaSalle Street

Chicago, IL 60603-3901

(312) 443-0377

DENNIS RUPP AND TIAA-CREF INDIVIDUAL

& INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES, INC.

By their attorneys,

DEVINE, MILLIMET & BRANCH,

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

By:__/s/ Donald L. Smith

Thomas Quarles, Esquire (Bar No. 2131)

Donald L. Smith, Esquire (Bar No. 13525)

111 Amherst Street

Manchester, NH 03101

(603) 669-1000

email: lsmith@devinemillimet.com

Of Counsel:

Gary D. Friedman, Esquire

Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP

1675 Broadway

New York, NY 10019

(212) 506-2574

Case 1:05-cv-00083-JD Document 22 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 3
SO ORDERED:

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. September 6, 2005 

U.S.D.J. Date

J:\WDOX\DOCS\CLIENTS\16285\73406\M0758077.DOC

Case 1:05-cv-00083-JD Document 22 Filed 09/06/05 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 1996 1997 1998

1999

Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.p

1 Deposits .............................. 167 457 167 260 157 409 257 166 243 189 500

Held in custody

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 638,049 620,885 607,574 606,662 606,579 611,372 619,004 626,669 634,086 621,351 629,430

3 Earmarked gold3 ........................ 11,197 10,763 10,343 10,340 10,340 10,329 10,329 10,271 10,155 10,114 10,015

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.
#### In the Matter of William Murray, Petitioner, v Raymond W. Kelly, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

[805 NYS2d 836]

Determination of respondent Commissioner, dated December 9, 2003, terminating petitioner’s employment as a New York City police officer, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered August 24, 2004) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence *(see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]) supports the challenged findings that petitioner issued summonses for moving violations without the drivers’ presence, and falsely recited the drivers’ presence on the summonses. No basis exists to disturb the credibility findings underlying the hearing officer’s conclusions as to petitioner’s guilt *(see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). Under the circumstances, the penalty is not shocking to our sense of fairness and, accordingly, will not be disturbed *(see Matter of Kelly v Safir,*96 NY2d 32, 39-40 [2001]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Marlow, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

USA

v. Civil No. 07-cv-398-JM

Digital Federal Credit Union

O R D E R

As no return of service or motion to extend time to effect service has been filed,

defendant, Digital Federal Credit Union, is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

April 16, 2008 /s/James R. Muirhead 

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Andrea A. Kafka, Esq.

Henry W. McElroy, Jr.

Case 1:07-cv-00398-LM Document 10 Filed 04/16/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

USA

v. Case No. 07-mc-7-SM

Stephen D. Hellwig

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated March 22, 2007, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

April 12, 2007 /s/ Steven J. McAuliffe

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: T. David Plourde, AUSA

Stephen D. Hellwig, pro se

Case 1:07-mc-00007-SM Document 6 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1715 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1715

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 8624 Ferguson Road in Dallas, Texas, as the ``Cesar E. Chavez Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2001

  Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 8624 Ferguson Road in Dallas, Texas, as the ``Cesar E. Chavez Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CESAR E. CHAVEZ POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 8624 Ferguson Road in Dallas, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Cesar E. Chavez Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Cesar E. 
Chavez Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1314

To provide an enhanced penalty for threatening to kill, injure, or intimidate

an individual, or to cause property damage, by means of fire or an

explosive on school property.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 29, 2001

Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. GILMAN, and Mrs. KELLY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

A BILL

To provide an enhanced penalty for threatening to kill, injure, or intimidate an individual, or to cause property

damage, by means of fire or an explosive on school

property.

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

•HR 1314

1 SECTION 1. ENHANCED PENALTY FOR THREATENING TO

2 KILL, INJURE, OR INTIMIDATE AN INDI3 VIDUAL, OR TO CAUSE PROPERTY DAMAGE,

4 BY MEANS OF FIRE OR AN EXPLOSIVE ON

5 SCHOOL PROPERTY.

6 Section 844(e) of title 18, United States Code, is

7 amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘If the threat

8 or conveying of false information referred to in the pre9 ceding sentence concerns conduct on the grounds of a

10 school which provides elementary or secondary education

11 (as determined under State law), the maximum term of

12 imprisonment under this subsection shall be 20 years.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT32.2

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

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

| /s/      Armand Correia                                   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Armand      Correia                                       |
| Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| November      10, 2010                                    |
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1845 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1845

To provide that no more than 50 percent of funding made available under 
 the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 for any fiscal year 
                 be provided for home heating purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2001

Mr. Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 
    on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that no more than 50 percent of funding made available under 
 the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 for any fiscal year 
                 be provided for home heating purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``LIHEAP Equity Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 2604(a)(1) of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 
1981 (42 U.S.C. 8623(a)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' 
        and inserting ``subparagraphs (B) and (C)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
    ``(C) Not more than 50 percent of amounts appropriated for carrying 
out this title for any fiscal year shall be provided for home heating 
purposes.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CapitalSource Finance LLC,

v. Civil No. 08-cv-239-JL

Pittsfield Weaving Company,

O R D E R

The parties have cross-appealed from the Bankruptcy Court’s

order granting, in part, the debtor’s seventh motion for

continued use of cash collateral. See 11 U.S.C. § 363. That

order, however, will expire as soon as the Bankruptcy Court rules

on the debtor’s eighth motion for continued use of cash

collateral, which that court took under advisement after

conducting a hearing on July 20, 2008. The appeal and crossappeal from the order on the seventh motion will then become

moot. This court therefore VACATES its prior order granting an

expedited hearing on the appeal and cross-appeal and STAYS this

appeal until the Bankruptcy Court rules on the debtor’s eighth

motion for continued use of cash collateral, whereupon the appeal

and cross-appeal will be dismissed as moot.

Case 1:08-cv-00239-JL Document 16 Filed 07/28/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: July 28, 2008

cc: Cheryl C. Deshaies, Esq.

Joseph A. Foster, Esq.

Peter A. Siddiqui, Esq.

John P. Sieger, Esq.

William S. Gannon, Esq.

Geraldine L. Karonis, Esq.

James S. LaMontagne, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00239-JL Document 16 Filed 07/28/08 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Foxworth, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 296]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Roger S. Hayes, J.), rendered June 30, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, without appointing new counsel. Counsel’s comments about his own actions did not provide any damaging factual information *(compare People v Rozzell,*20 NY2d 712 [1967]), and there is no reasonable possibility they affected the court’s decision to deny defendant’s patently meritless motion *(see e.g. People v Burgos,*298 AD2d 190 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 580 [2003]; *People v Otero,*282 AD2d 344, 345 [2001], *lv*
      *482
      *denied*96 NY2d 905 [2001]). The motion consisted of a standard form containing conclusory allegations that the court characterized correctly as “boilerplate.” Accordingly, defendant received effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]) and he was not deprived of his right to conflict-free representation *(see Cuyler v Sullivan,*446 US 335, 348-350 [1980]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.