alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MORRIS PLAN BANK v. GLOCKNER.*

No. 15030.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 10, 1935.

Harold J. Moore, of New Orleans, for appellant. ■ -

Marcus & Corkern and Cicero C. Sessions, all of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

Rehearing denied June 24, 1935.

WESTERFIEDD, Judge.

This is a suit for $125,. the balance alleged to be due on a promissory note executed by defendant. The defense, as set up in the answer, is based upon the alleged failure of the plaintiff to intervene in a proceeding involving the seizure and sale of an automobile belonging to the defendant upon which the plaintiff had a chattel mortgage given as security for the promissory note sued on, the contention being that if the plaintiff had intervened in the other suit and asserted its lien, the entire amount due under the note would necessarily have been discharged because of the priority of plaintiff’s lien over that of the seizing creditor.

There was judgment below in plaintiff’s favor, as prayed for, and defendant has appealed.

The defense is wholly without merit, since a secured creditor is under no obligation to protect its interest in the security. A mortgage creditor may proceed via executiva, or via ordinaria. In the present instance, the creditor elected to adopt the ordinary procedure. When and if it attempts to assert a lien as against the mortgaged automobile, it may develop that the privilege granted by the mortgage has been waived because of its failure to intervene in the other suit. Be that as it may, there can be no question that the plaintiff is entitled to an ordinary judgment against the defendant.

Counsel, in his brief filed in this court, states that originally there was judgment in favor of defendant dismissing plaintiff’s suit and that this judgment was not set aside or recalled by any order of court, and he argues that the subsequent judgment from which this appeal was taken is without legal effect.

The only reference to a previous judgment contained in the transcript is in a copy of the minutes. The judgment is not in the record, nor is . there anything to indicate whether the judgment was signed and what proceedings were taken to recall it. If the point now made was deemed important, the proper steps should have been taken by counsel to have the transcript include the evidence upon which it is based. We can only consider the case as presented by the record before, us.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            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 Quarterly Report of Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 condition and result of operations
           of the Company.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc. and will be retained by
Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.




/s/ RICHARD E. GATHRIGHT
-------------------------------------------------
Richard E. Gathright
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 15, 2004


/s/ MICHAEL S. SHORE
-------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Shore
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
November 15, 2004
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the                     **Federal Register**                    . Copies of agreements are available through the Commission's Web site (                    *http://www.fmc.gov*) or contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or                     *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov*.                 

*Agreement No.:*                     012051.                 

*Title:*                     CMA CGM-APL Space Charter Agreement.                 

*Parties:*                     CMA CGM, S.A.; American President Lines, Ltd.; and APL Co. Pte Ltd.                 

*Filing Party:*                     Draughn B. Arbona, Esq., Associate Counsel, CMA CGM (America) Inc., 5701 Lake Wright Drive, Norfolk, VA 23502-1858.                 

*Synopsis:*                     The agreement authorizes CMA to charter space to APL in the trade between U.S. East Coast ports and ports on the Mediterranean and Red Seas and on the Indian Subcontinent.                 

By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission. 

Dated: September 26, 2008. 

Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8-23145 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of CDSI Holdings Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
J. Lampen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

     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 condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

May 15, 2008


                                        /s/ Richard J. Lampen
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Richard J. Lampen
                                        Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
58174 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E8–23345 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–62] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–62 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: September 25, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58175 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN06OC08.040</GPH>
58176 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN06OC08.041</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58177 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN06OC08.042</GPH>
58178 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICESEN06OC08.043</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58179 

[FR Doc. E8–23348 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–64] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(l) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–64 

with attached transmittal, and policy 

justification. 

Dated: September 25, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
#### Gail S. Fanelli, Appellant, v George C. Fanelli, Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 435]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dillon, J.), entered September 5, 2001, which denied her motion for a protective order and to quash a subpoena duces tecum served upon a nonparty, and, sua sponte, awarded the defendant an attorneys fee in the sum of $750.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, awarded the defendant an attorneys fee is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from a sua sponte order, and leave to appeal has not been granted *(see*CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The Supreme Court properly denied, on both procedural and substantive grounds, the plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum and for a protective order. The plaintiff’s counsel failed to provide the required affirmation of a good faith effort to resolve the disclosure dispute *(see*22 NYCRR 202.7 [a] [2]; *Hegler v Loews Roosevelt Field Cinemas,*280 AD2d 645; *Romero v Korn,*236 AD2d 598). Moreover, suppression of the requested documents was not warranted under the circumstances of this case (see *Gutierrez v Dudock,*276 AD2d 746; *DiMarco v Sparks,*212 AD2d 965). O’Brien, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01757-BNB

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

EARL H. BRAUCH, and

BRAUCH ENTERPRISES II,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. # 12, filed

12/23/2012] (the “Motion to Compel”). I held a hearing on the Motion to Compel and made

rulings on the record, which are incorporated here. The Motion to Compel [Doc. # 12] is

GRANTED.

Defendant Earl H. Brauch’s Reply to Discovery Requests [Doc. # 14] is evasive and nonresponsive and does not comply with the formalities required by the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, including the obligation to answer interrogatories under oath. Mr. Brauch failed to

provide meaningful answers to the interrogatories, claiming that “[a]ll records, receipts, invoices,

documents, etc., have been lost/misplaced and are unavailable due to the homeless condition of

the Defendant.” Reply [Doc. # 14] at p. 1. Most of the interrogatories can be answered without

reference to any records, receipts, or the like, including those interrogatories seeking

identification of recent expenditures; recent sources of income; bank accounts; places of

employment; places of residence; items of value received from Mr. Brauch’s mother’s estate;

Case 1:11-cv-01757-LTB Document 18 Filed 03/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

motor vehicles owned; and real and personal property owned.

The plaintiff attempted in good faith to resolve this discovery dispute without court

action; Mr. Brauch’s failure to provide complete, non-evasive responses was not substantially

justified; and an award of the plaintiff’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the Motion to

Compel is not unjust. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Motion to Compel [Doc. # 12] is GRANTED. Defendant Earl H. Brauch

shall fully and directly answer the interrogatories, respond to the requests for production, and

produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, and control on or before March

30, 2012. The discovery responses shall comply with all formalities required by the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

(2) The plaintiff is awarded its reasonable expenses incurred in making the Motion to

Compel. It shall file a fee application that complies with the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR

54.3 on or before March 30, 2012.

Dated March 12, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01757-LTB Document 18 Filed 03/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1071 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1071

To authorize the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to 
    waive the prohibition on duplication of certain disaster relief 
                              assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2007

Ms. Landrieu (for herself and Mr. Lott) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business 
                          and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to 
    waive the prohibition on duplication of certain disaster relief 
                              assistance.

    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 ``Catastrophic Disaster Recovery 
Fairness Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER OF PROHIBITION ON DUPLICATION OF CERTAIN BENEFITS.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section--
            (1) the term ``applicable period'' means the period 
        beginning on August 29, 2005, and ending on October 24, 2005; 
        and
            (2) the term ``major disaster'' has the meaning given that 
        term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
        and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
    (b) Waiver of Prohibition on Duplication of Certain Benefits.--In 
providing assistance under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 7(b) of the 
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)), for any major disaster declared 
during the applicable period, the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration shall waive the prohibition on the duplication of 
benefits, including whether damage or destruction has been compensated 
for by, credit is available from, activities are reimbursable through, 
or funds have been made available from any other source.
    (c) Applicability and Retroactivity for Victims of Hurricanes 
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.--This section shall apply to any assistance 
under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) 
provided on or after August 29, 2005.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 7574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2320]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a 
Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

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

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of SGS North America, 
Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, SGS North America, Inc., 324 Marginal Street, Chelsea, MA 
02150, 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#7e1d1c0e50121f1c160f3e1a160d50191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="88ebeaf8a6e4e9eae0f9c8ece0fba6efe7fe">[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 SGS North America, Inc., as a 
commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on August 24, 2006. 
The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 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. E8-2320 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>
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 193 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23477]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint

Notification of United States Mint Silver Eagle Bullion Coin 
Premium Adjustment

ACTION: Notification of United States Mint Silver Eagle Bullion Coin 
Premium Adjustment.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Mint is adjusting the premium charged to 
Authorized Purchasers for American Eagle Silver Bullion Coins, which 
the agency mints and issues in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5112(e).
    Because of increases in the cost of acquiring silver blanks, the 
United States Mint will increase the premium charged to Authorized 
Purchasers for American Eagle Silver Bullion Coins, from $1.25 to $1.40 
per coin, for all orders accepted on or after October 14, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria C. Eskridge, Associate Director 
for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 Ninth Street, NW.; 
Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5112(f)(1).

    Dated: September 29, 2008.
Edmund C. Moy,
Director, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. E8-23477 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
```
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-72,807-04

EX PARTE ISMAIL SHABAZZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 8785 IN THE 411 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM TRINITY COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and

sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.

Shabazz v. State, No. 13-05-00237-CR (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg May 11, 2006) (not

designated for publication).

Applicant contends that a juror was related to the victim and was biased. He also alleges that

when the prosecutor learned of this, he committed prosecutorial misconduct when he told the juror

that “it was better that she was related to the victim” and did not report this conversation to the court
2

or the defense. The record contains an affidavit from the juror dated after Applicant’s prior writ was

decided. 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. In these circumstances,

additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court may use any

means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). 

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether one of the

jurors was biased against Applicant, depriving him of a fair trial by an impartial jury. The trial court

shall also make findings of fact addressing Applicant’s contention that the prosecutor committed

prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and conclusions

of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for habeas

corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court.

Filed: March 2, 2016 

Do not publish