alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:11-cv-02191-RM Document 3 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02191-RM Document 3 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02191-RM Document 3 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02191-RM Document 3 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
#### JACKSON HOMESTEAD ASS’N v. ZERLIN et al.*

No. 13963.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 16, 1932.

For former opinion, see 140 So. 167.

Deutsch & Kerrigan, of New Orleans, for appellants Madison Lumber Co. and Carolina Portland Cement Co.

H. W. Kaiser, Thomas Tomeny, and J. H. I-Iammel, Jr., all of New Orleans, for appellee Sam Latter.

*

Rehearing denied May 30, 1932.

JANVIER, J.

The facts are sufficiently stated in our original opinion.

On reconsideration of the testimony we have reached the conclusion that we were in error in reversing the finding of the district court, since that finding involved only questions of fact and was not manifestly erroneous.

Astute counsel for appellant had, in brief and oral argument on the first hearing, been most persuasive and had succeeded in convincing us that the contention that Latter had purchased the note was unreasonable and should not be accepted.

It is only alleged suspicious circumstances, however, to which counsel can point and not to positive evidence. On the contrary, the positive evidence shows that, however unwise it may have been for him to do so, Latter did make the purchase.

In such situation where the trial court has seen and heard the witnesses, and has believed the positive evidence, it should not be made to yield to suspicion unless the latter so preponderates as to make the acceptance of the former repugnant to reason.

“Suspicious circumstances will not have the effect of destroying positive evidence, which is not contradicted, and which bears the semblance of truth.” People’s National Bank v. Voorhies et al., 134 La. 303, 64 So. 120.

See, also, Simonton et al. v. Scott et al., 123 La. 413, 49 So. 4, and Krauss Co., Ltd. v. God-chaux, 13 La. App. 607, 128 So. 673.

Here, the testimony of Zerlin, Latter, and Pailet cannot be interpreted in any other way than as being statements to the effect that the note was bought by Latter and not Zerlin, and, in view of the finding of the district judge to that effect, we feel that the judgment should not have been reversed.

Our former decree is recalled and annulled, and it is now ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be, and it is, affirmed at the cost of appellant.

Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57085-57086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23037]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Partially Closed Meeting of the Secretary of the 
Advisory Panel; Correction

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy published a document in the Federal 
Register on September 05, 2008, announcing a partially closed meeting 
of the Secretary of the Advisory Panel (SNAP). The date and location of 
the meeting contained in the document have changed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colonel Caroline Simkins-Mullins, 
SECNAV Advisory Panel, Office of Program and Process Assessment, 1000 
Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350, telephone: 703-697-9154.

[[Page 57086]]

Correction

    In the Federal Register of September 05, 2008, in FR Doc. E8-20554, 
make the following changes:
    1. In the second column, on page 51799, correct the DATES caption 
to read as follows:

``DATES: The meeting will be held on October 16, 2008 from 8:30 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m. The morning sessions on Acquisition Structure from 8:30-11:30 
a.m. will be opened. The afternoon sessions will be closed.''

    2. In the second column, on page 51799, correct the ADDRESSES 
caption to read as follows:

``ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Room 1E868, in the Pentagon, 
1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350. Public access is limited due 
to the Pentagon Security requirements. Any individual wishing to attend 
the meeting must contact LCDR Cary Knox, USN at 703-693-0463 or Colonel 
Simkins-Mullins at 703-697-9154 no later than October 9, 2008. Members 
of the public who do not have Pentagon access will be required to 
provide the following information by October 9, 2008 in order to obtain 
a visitor badge: Name, Date of Birth and Social Security Number. Public 
transportation is recommended as public parking is not available. 
Members of the public wishing to attend this meeting must enter through 
the Pentagon Metro Entrance between 7:45 a.m. and 8:15 a.m. Members of 
the public will need two forms of identification in order to receive a 
visitors badge and meet their escort. Members of the public will be 
escorted to Room 1E868 to attend the open sessions of the Advisory 
Panel and shall remain with designated escorts at all times while on 
the Pentagon Reservation. Members of the public will be escorted back 
to the Pentagon Metro Entrance at the 11:30 a.m.''

    Dated: September 24, 2008.
T.M. Cruz,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate Generals Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal 
Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-23037 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
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: 1Federal Reserve Bank of: BostonFilings received during the week ending January 5, 2008FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
#### JOLLY et al. v. RICHARDSON et al.

8 Div. 627.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 16, 1935.

Rehearing Denied June 20,1935.

*815E. W. Godbey, of Decatur, for appellants.

J. G. Rankin, of Athens, for appellees.

ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

It is well settled by the decisions of this court that a guardian, trustee or administrator may make temporary deposits of trust funds in a responsible bank, acting in good faith and with discretion, and will not be held liable for such funds in event of a failure of said bank. Barnes v. Clark, 227 Ala. 651,151 So., 586, 90 A. L. R. 637; Gibbons v. Norton, 225 Ala. 650,145 So. 131.

Of course, to come within the protection of the above-stated rule, the trustee must not deposit the funds in his own name nor commingle the account with his own in the bank, for, if he does, his liability will become absolute, and he cannot escape liability by reason of good faith, prudence of judgment, or upon the fact that he may have disposed- of his own funds in the same way. Chancellor v. Chancellor, 177 Ala. 44, 58 So. 423, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 47.

We think the evidence shows that the appellee deposited the fund in question in his representative rather than individual capacity ; that he did so as administrator. ■True-, the books of the bank show that the deposits were to him as administrator and did not specify or designate the estate to which the fund belonged, but it also appears that before the bank closed, the account was designated on the books- as being the estate of “Will Jolly.” ‘ It also appears that the only checks drawn against the fund' were drawn by the appellee as administrator of “Will Jolly,” and which were paid by the bank. In other words, we think the books of the bank were such as to enable the beneficiaries to establish their claim or ownership ■to the fund in case of the death of Richardson, the administrator, and that it did not belong to him individually.

*816We think that the evidence fails to charge the appellee with notice of the failing condition of the hank when the deposits were made.

True, practically all of the funds involved were from the federal'government, a part paid to Jolly before his death, and the balance to this appellee just before the bank closed, but we do not think it was the duty of the appellee to have turned this fund over to the widow and minor children in advance of the orderly proceedings in the’ probate court; certainly not before the deferred payments had been collected from .the government. True, these funds were.exempt from the payment of the debts of the’decedent, but the government required a legal administration on his estate, and it was not incumbent upon the administrator to pay over or disburse the fund in advance of an orderly administration which he was' attempting to bring to a close when the bank failed.

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed'.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ„ concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

DEBRA FRANCHI, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS PARENT AND GUARDIAN OF 

CF, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

NEW HAMPTON SCHOOL

 

Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civ. A. No. 1:08-CV-00395-JL

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

NOW COMES Defendant New Hampton School (hereinafter, “NHS”), by and through 

counsel, and answers Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. In the interest of brevity, NHS 

incorporates the responses and affirmative defenses in its Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint (Dkt. Doc. No. 22) herein by reference, and responds to only those allegations 

Plaintiff identified as new in her Motion to Amend Amended Complaint. 

NHS states as follows:

35. NHS denies the allegations stated in Paragraph 35 of Plaintiff’s Second Amended 

Complaint. 

40. NHS denies the allegations stated in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiff’s Second Amended 

Complaint. 

50. NHS denies the allegations stated in Paragraph 50 of Plaintiff’s Second Amended 

Complaint.

Case 1:08-cv-00395-JL Document 32 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 2
2

Respectfully submitted,

Andréa K. Johnstone, Bar No. 7908

/s/ Edward J. Sackman

Edward J. Sackman, Bar No. 19586

Attorneys for Defendant New Hampton 

School

BERNSTEIN SHUR, P.A.

670 North Commercial Street, Suite 108

P.O. Box 1120

Manchester NH 03105-1120

603.623.8700

ajohnstone@bernsteinshur.com

nsackman@bernsteinshur.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 12th day of May 2010, Defendant’s Answer to Second 

Amended Complaint was electronically filed using the CM/ECF system which will send 

notification of such filings(s) to the following: 

Peter Hutchins, Esquire

Donna-Marie Cote, Esquire

Wiggin & Nourie, PA

670 N. Commercial St., Suite 305

Manchester NH 03105-0808

/s/ Edward J. Sackman

Edward J. Sackman, Bar No. 19586

Case 1:08-cv-00395-JL Document 32 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 7572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2319]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, 
as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, 12211 Port Road, 
Operations Blvd., Seabrook, TX 77586, has been approved to gauge and 
accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals 
and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the 
provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ 
this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should 
request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is 
accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 
conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, 
inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is 
accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also 
be sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83e0e1f3adefe2e1ebf2c3e7ebf0ade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8dbdac896d4d9dad0c9f8dcd0cb96dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web site listed 
below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited 
laboratories.
    http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/.

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on 
September 8, 2006. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled 
for September 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commercial Gauger Laboratory Program 
Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 
20229, 202-344-1060.

    Dated: January 31, 2008.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. E8-2319 Filed 2-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6119** 

KENNETH DARNIEL SWEETING , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

– Appellee
.

Appeal fro m the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Jerome B. Friedman , District Judge. ( 2:09

- cv - 00252

- JBF

- TEM )

Submitted : June 17, 2010 Decided: June 25, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kenneth Darniel Sweeting, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Darniel Sweeting seeks to appeal the district

cour t’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstratin g that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court den ies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independe ntly reviewed the record and conclude that Sweeting has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres ented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 10.3

## STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 2

This  Stock  Option  Agreement  Amendment  No.  2 is made as of June 25,  2002 by and  between
Wilshire  Financial  Services  Group Inc. (the  Company)  and Jay H. Memmott (the  Optionee),  with
reference to the following facts:

A.   The Company and the Optionee have entered into certain stock option agreements
dated as of September 29, 2000 and October 2, 2001, pursuant to which the
Company has granted to the Optionee options to purchase certain shares of the
common stock of the Company.

B.   The Company  and the  Optionee  desire to amend the stock  option  agreements  in the
manner set forth below.

NOW
THEREFORE, the Company and the Optionee hereby amend the stock option agreements
as follows:

1.   Section  1.3.2 of each stock  option  agreement  is hereby  amended to provide in its
entirety, as follows:

| | 1.3.2
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 1.3.1 hereof, upon the
occurrence of a Change in Control, as defined either in the Plan or in the
Companys Change in Control Plan (as provided to you from Stephen P.
Glennon to Optionee as of June 22, 2000), the unvested portion of this option
shall immediately vest and become exercisable.
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.
In all other respects the terms and provisions of the stock option agreements
are hereby ratified and declared to be in full force and effect.

| | Wilshire Financial Services Group Inc.
| | --------------------------------------
| |                                       
| | By:_________________________________  
| | Name:STEPHEN P. GLENNON               
| | Title:CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER         
| |                                       
| |                                       
| |                                       
| | ____________________________________  
| | Jay H. Memmott
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01955-LTB

ROBERT J. FREEMAN,

Applicant,

v.

ARISTEDES ZAVARAS, and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY SENIOR JUDGE LEWIS T. BABCOCK

Applicant’s “Motion for Court Appointed Counsel” (Doc. #19) is DENIED without

prejudice to being refiled in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 

Applicant’s “Motion to Stay Appeal to Process Jury Trial Demand” (Doc. #20) is

DENIED.

Dated: January 3, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-01955-LTB Document 23 Filed 01/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
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: 9Federal Reserve Bank of: MinneapolisFilings received during the week ending November 9, 2013FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodABDO INVESTMENTS, INC.                                                                                                  * 3A3Abdo Investments, Inc., Edina, Minnesota, to retain additional voting shares and acquire additional warrants on voting shares, thereby increasing its ownership interest to 28.00%, of Rivers Ridge Holding Company, Edina, Minnesota, which owns BankVista, Sartell, Minnesota.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 11/25/2013ABDO INVESTMENTS, INC.                                                                                                  CICChange in Control Notice by Jay Abdo, Bloomington, Minnesota; Melody Borth, Mankato, Minnesota; Jill Hansen, Edina, Minnesota; Lynne Abdo, Norwalk, Connecticut; James Abdo, Edina, Minnesota;  John Abdo, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and  Paul Abdo, Edina, Minnesota, to retain 10% or more of the voting shares of Abdo Investments, Inc., Edina, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly retain control of Rivers Ridge Holding Company, Edina, Minnesota, which owns BankVista, Sartell, Minnesota.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 11/15/2013CHOICE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC.                                                                                         4c8
Exhibit 23

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-104835, 333-104458, 333-88382, 333-35318, 333-35208, 333-86113, 333-09721, 333-01649, 333-01651, and 033-60259 on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 8, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements of West Coast Bancorp and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of West Coast Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2005.

| DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |
|---------------------------|
|                      |
| Portland, Oregon          |
| February 8, 2006          |
|   | 1. | I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A of Schawk, Inc.; and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|           |   |                    |
|----------------|--------|-------------------------|
| April 30, 2014 |   | /s/David A. Schawk      |
|           |   | David A. Schawk         |
|           |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|           |   |                    |
Exhibit 32.2








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending January 29, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Todd Weyhrich, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial position and results of  operations of the Company.








Date: April 14, 2011








/s/ Todd Weyhrich





Todd Weyhrich


Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)
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: 5Federal Reserve Bank of: RichmondFilings received during the week ending August 3, 2013FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodC&F FINANCIAL CORPORATION                                                                                               * 3A5C&F Financial Corporation, West Point, Virginia, to acquire 100% of the voting securities of Central Virginia Bankshares, Inc., Powhatan, Virginia, and thereby indirectly acquire Central Virginia Bank, Powhatan, Virginia.Newspaper: 08/24/2013Federal Register: 08/23/2013