alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the the
 unaudited financial statements of Tear Drop Golf Company for the quarter
ended March 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. dollars

       

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1

<CASH>                                        375,000
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                              16,624,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                2,444,000
<INVENTORY>                                14,384,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           31,788,000
<PP&E>                                      9,642,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              4,616,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             42,037,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      11,764,000
<BONDS>                                    21,062,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      10,000,000
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       27,000
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               42,037,000
<SALES>                                    25,000,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           25,000,000
<CGS>                                      15,499,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              15,499,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              157,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (392,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             1,040,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (364,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         1,432,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                1,040,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.33
        


</TABLE>
#### National Land and Building Corporation, Appellant, v Khurshid A. Kazim, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[810 NYS2d 132]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered December 10, 2004, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted defendant Kazim’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against her, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Title to the property was not rendered unmarketable by virtue of defendant Clear Channel’s earlier attempt to exercise its *514right of first refusal with respect to a prior offer for $1.2 million. That effort was clearly untimely and ineffective. When advised of the Kazim contract on February 26, 2004, Clear Channel elected not to exercise its right of first refusal to purchase the property for $1.4 million. Clear Channel cannot “revive” the prior, ineffective exercise in an attempt to block the sale of the property (see *Matter of Temple of Emanu-El of Boro Park v Attorney General of State of N.Y.,*240 AD2d 752 [1997]), nor can plaintiff rely on the threat of litigation to render the title unmarketable. The mere possibility of a defect, which has no probable basis, as here, does not render title unmarketable (see *Regan v Lanze,*40 NY2d 475, 482 [1976]).

The motion court did not err in finding that Kazim had standing to contest the validity of the purported exercise of Clear Channel’s right of first refusal. Kazim, who entered into a contract for the purchase of property that was expressly subject to Clear Channel’s right of first refusal, was certainly aggrieved by plaintiffs reliance on Clear Channel’s purported exercise of its right of first refusal in seeking to cancel the Kazim contract. To hold otherwise would place a purchaser in the precarious position of being unable to vindicate its contractual rights, while allowing a seller to rely on any spurious claim so long as it implicated a third party’s rights, in order to avoid a contract with impunity. Under such circumstances, as the motion court observed, a would-be purchaser would be unable to determine the validity of a third party’s claim to property, or to prevent collusion between a seller and such third-party purchaser *(see also Isa v Gas Elezaj Corp.,*303 AD2d 636 [2003]). Concur— Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02305-MSK-KMT

LAURA L. SCHATKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

DATED this 23rd day of September, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23610]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

[OMB Control No. 3206-0234; STANDARD FORM (SF) 1153]


Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request for Review of a 
Revised Information Collection

AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the U.S. Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) a request for review of an expiring information 
collection. This information collection, ``Claim for Unpaid 
Compensation of Deceased Civilian Employee'' (OMB Control No. 3206-
0234; SF 1153), is used to collect information from individuals who 
have been designated as beneficiaries of the unpaid compensation of a 
deceased Federal civilian employee or who believe that their 
relationship to the deceased entitles them to receive the unpaid 
compensation of the deceased employee. OPM needs this information in 
order to adjudicate the claim and properly assign a deceased Federal 
civilian employee's unpaid compensation to the appropriate 
individuals(s).
    We received no comments on our 60-day notice on this information 
collection (SF 1153), published in the Federal Register on June 17, 
2008.
    Approximately 3,000 SF 1153 forms are submitted annually. It takes 
approximately 15 minutes to complete the form. The annual estimated 
burden is 750 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Margaret A. Miller by 
telephone at (202) 606-2699, by FAX at (202) 418-3251, or by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ce83afbca9afbcabbae083a7a2a2abbc8ea1bea3e0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d604c5f4a4c5f48590360444141485f6d425d40034a425b">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include your mailing address with your 
request.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar 
days from the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to:

Robert D. Hendler, Program Manager, Center for Merit Systems 
Accountability, Division for Human Capital Leadership and Merit System 
Accountability, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, 
NW., Room 6484, Washington, DC 20415; and
John W. Barkhamer, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive 
Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 
20503.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Howard Weizmann,
Deputy Director.
 [FR Doc. E8-23610 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-43-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE BOYD N. BOLAND

____________________________________________________________________________

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02438-PAB-BNB Date: November 11, 2011

Courtroom Deputy: Geneva D. Mattei FTR BNB COURTROOM A401 

ALVIN MOSCH, Richard Garnett

PATRICIA C. MOSCH, and

DAVID K. MOSCH,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

JOHN HENRY, and Pro se

UNITED STATES REAL ESTATE Pro se

CORPORATION,

Defendant(s).

COURTROOM MINUTES

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Court in Session: 9:31 a.m.

Appearances of counsel. 

Court’s opening remarks.

John Schlie informs the court that he will be entering his appearance for the defendants.

ORDERED: Mr. Schlie shall enter his appearance on or before November 18, 2011.

ORDERED: A Scheduling Conference is set for December 9, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.

A proposed scheduling order shall be submitted on or before December 2,

2011.

ORDERED: Defendants’ motion to reconsider [doc. #29, filed 11/7/11 ] is denied for

reasons stated on the record.

Case 1:11-cv-02438-PAB-BNB Document 32 Filed 11/11/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
-2-

Court in Recess: 9:44 a.m. Hearing concluded. Total time in court: 00:13

* To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119.

Case 1:11-cv-02438-PAB-BNB Document 32 Filed 11/11/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANTOS ERNESTO VILLA

MARTINEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74777

Agency No. A088-423-365

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 10, 2011** 

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 

Santos Ernesto Villa Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

FILED

JAN 25 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74777

questions of law, and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny

the petition for review. 

Villa Martinez was not denied his right to counsel because he knowingly and

voluntarily waived his right to counsel when he told the IJ he wanted to proceed

with his hearing without counsel after the IJ offered to continue his hearing in

order to ensure counsel’s presence. See Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1100

(9th Cir. 2005) (“[A]n alien cannot appear pro se without a knowing and voluntary

waiver of the right to counsel.”). 

We agree with the BIA that Villa Martinez was not prejudiced by former

counsel’s failure to appear at his hearing because Villa Martinez was not eligible

for any relief at that time. See Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 793-94. 

Villa Martinez’s contentions under 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(b)(2) are unavailing. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Villa Martinez’s motion to

reopen on the ground that he failed to demonstrate the evidence he submitted was

previously unavailable and material. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c); Bhasin v.

Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir. 2005).
3 08-74777

Villa Martinez’s remaining contentions are unavailing. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### The National City Bank of Cleveland et al. *v.*Schmolz et al. (Five cases.)

(Nos. 25101, 25102, 25103, 25104 and 25105

Decided December 26, 1934.)

*Messrs. Squire, Sanders $ Dempsey, Mr. H. B. Howells, Messrs. McKeehan, Merrick, Arter & Stewart, Mr. H. J. Crawford, Mr. Paul J. Bickel*and *Mr. L. C. Wykoff,*for plaintiffs in error.

*159*Messrs.*Horwits, *Kiefer, Gates & Harmel, Mr. Al. N. Jappe, Mr. Jay B. Gates, Mr. John W. Bricker,*attorney general, and *Mr. Charles F. Carr,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petitions in error be, and the same hereby are, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said causes.

*Petitions in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Carver, Hart, Stephenson, Williams, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7706** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DONOVAN ANTHONY MONCRIEFFE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. ( 1:07

- cr - 00177

- CMH

- 4 ; 1:11

- cv - 01180

- CMH )

Submitted : April 30, 2014 Decided: June 6, 2014

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER , and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Donovan Anthony Moncrieffe , Appellant Pro Se. Jay V. Prabhu, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not bin ding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Donovan Anthony Moncrieffe seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012) . 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) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debat able 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 denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moncrieffe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny leave to proceed in informa pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not ai d the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.3

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                              MBHI CAPITAL TRUST I


         THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF MBHI CAPITAL TRUST I (the "Trust"), is
being duly executed and filed by Wilmington Trust Company, a Delaware banking
corporation, and Robert L. Woods, Edward H. Sibbald and Daniel R. Kadolph, each
an individual, as trustees, to form a business trust under the Delaware Business
Trust Act (12 Del. C. Section 3801 et seq.) (the "Act").

1.       NAME. The name of the business trust formed hereby is MBHI Capital
         Trust I.

2.       DELAWARE TRUSTEE. The name and business address of the trustee of the
         Trust in the State of Delaware is Wilmington Trust Company, Rodney
         Square North, 1100 North Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware
         19890-0001, Attention: Corporate Trust Administration.

3.       EFFECTIVE DATE. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective on May 5,
         2000.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate of
Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a)(1) of the Act.

                                   WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, as trustee


                                   By:      /s/ Donald G. MacKelcan
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                   Name:    Donald G. MacKelcan
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                   Title:   Vice President
                                         --------------------------------------


                                   /s/ Robert L. Woods            , as  Trustee
                                   -------------------------------
                                   Name: Robert L. Woods

                                   /s/ Edward H. Sibbald           , as Trustee
                                   --------------------------------
                                   Name: Edward H. Sibbald

                                   /s/ Daniel R. Kadolph           , as Trustee
                                   --------------------------------
                                   Name: Daniel R. Kadolph
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19 - 0706

_________________ IN THE MATTER OF: N.A., Respondent and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classifi ed for submission on briefs to the Court sitting en banc. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Mi chael F. McMahon, District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 18 2021

08/18/2021
Case Number: DA 19-0706
#### Redman *v.*The North River Ins. Co.

(No. 24639

— Decided November 21, 1934.)

*617Messrs. *Faust é Faust*and *Messrs. Thomas, Hyers <& Leyland,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Clifford B. Curtner*and *Mr. Baird Broomhall,*for defendant in error.

By the Court.

The single question here for deter*618mination at this time is whether the admissions contained in the company’s reply justify the action of the trial court in rendering judgment in favor of Redman.

A study of the material part of the reply discloses two admissions. The first is that there was a trial in the case in which Kuhl was the plaintiff and Redman the defendant. The second is that Kuhl “did not recover a judgment but lost said case.” Then follows a denial that “the issues involved in this case have been adjudicated in favor of the defendant, John Red-man. ’ ’ Thus it is apparent that the company and Red-man are in disagreement as to the identity of the issues involved in the two cases. Under this state of the pleadings the question of *res judicata*is not determinable from them alone.

However, it is urged by Redman that in the trial of the case of *Kuhl*v. *Redman*the jury in answering certain interrogatories found Kuhl guilty of contributory negligence. Even if the jury so found, this fact obviously cannot enter into a consideration of the instant question inasmuch as it involves evidence *aliunde.*Therefore until the precise nature of the defense of *res judicata*is adequately presented it would be inconsistent with the proprieties and probably serve no useful purpose for this court to speculate with reference thereto to the extent of indulging in a theoretical discussion of the law relating to the various problems that may eventually materialize.

In view of the foregoing the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Jones, Matthtas, Bevis, Zimmerman and Wilkin, JJ., concur.
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: 8Federal Reserve Bank of: St. LouisFilings received during the week ending November 26, 2005FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodDBT FINANCIAL CORPORATION                                                                                               CICNotice by the Ferguson family control group, to retain control of DBT Financial Corporation, DeWitt, Arkansas.  The control group consists of Carolyn Ferguson Pryor, Jackson, Mississippi; Nancy Ferguson Rasco, Hot Springs, Arkansas; Rebecca Ferguson Ehrlicher, Memphis, Tennessee; Carolyn F. Pryor Trust, DeWitt, Arkansas; Nancy F. Rasco Trust, DeWitt, Arkansas; and Rebecca F. Ehrlicher Trust, DeWitt, Arkansas.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 12/15/2005FIRST BANK                                                                                                              * 18CFirst Bank, St. Louis, Missouri, to purchase certain assets and assume certain liabilities of the Richardson, Texas, branch of Dallas National Bank, Dallas, Texas.Newspaper: 12/21/2005Federal Register: Not applicableRELIANCE BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                               * 4c8Reliance Bancshares, Inc., Des Peres, Missouri, to acquire 100 percent of Reliance Bank, FSB, Fort Meyers, Florida (in organization), and thereby operate a savings association.Newspaper: 12/26/2005Federal Register: Not available
**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 Annual Report of ZAP (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the
      quarter and six months ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Steven M. Schneider, as
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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 results of operations of the
                Company.




/s/
                  STEVEN M. SCHNEIDER
                Steven
                  M. SchneiderTitle:
                  Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)Date:
                  August 14, 2006










This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.