alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### EDWARD A. MURPHY, RESPONDENT, v. HOMER C. ZINK, ETC., APPELLANT.

Submitted October 31, 1947

Decided January 29, 1948.

For the appellant, *Walter D. Van*Riper, Attorney-General.

For the respondent, Milton, *McNulty & Augelli (Anthony T.*Augelli, of counsel).

*636Pee Cueiam.

The judgment under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Burling in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chief Justice, Donges, Heher, Colie, Eastwood, Wells, Dill, Freund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. 10.

*For reversal*— None.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6971** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CURTIS BURSTON, JR., a/k/a Black, a/k/a David Smith, a/k/a Melvin Roberts, a/k/a David Brown , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 5:04

- cr - 00371

- F

- 2 )

Submitted : October 22 , 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Curtis Burston, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are no t binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Curtis Burston, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying without prejudice his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion as successive and denying his motion to reconsider. The order s ar e not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (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 demonstrating 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 denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that t he 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 Burston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala bility and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Burston’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or3 successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that
. . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact finder would have found the m ovant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court , that was previously unavailable
. 28 U.S.C. A. § 22 55(h ) (West Supp. 2013)
. Burston’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to fi le a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decision al
process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6923
GREGORY L. COOPER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at A lexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-1778-AM) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 21, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory L. Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Ruth Ann Morken, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Cooper v. Angelone , No. CA-96-1778-AM (E.D. Va. June 9, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



EXHIBIT 12
 CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS (BEFORE
FIXED CHARGES) TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK
DIVIDENDS
(In thousands, except ratios)
(Unaudited)
  Six MonthsEnded
    
    
    Year Ended December 31June 30, 2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001Income from
continuing operations
    
    $
    2,986
    
    
    $
    17,195
    
    
    $
    39,869
    
    
    $
    58,666
    
    
    $
    95,246
    
    
    $
    106,276Fixed charges
    
    
    105,436
    
    
    
    106,909
    
    
    
    44,939
    
    
    
    58,924
    
    
    
    164,994
    
    
    
    363,317Income from continuing
operations before fixed
charges
    
    $
    108,422
    
    
    $
    124,104
    
    
    $
    84,808
    
    
    $
    117,590
    
    
    $
    260,240
    
    
    $
    469,593Fixed charges
    
    $
    105,436
    
    
    $
    106,909
    
    
    $
    44,939
    
    
    $
    58,924
    
    
    $
    164,994
    
    
    $
    363,317Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    10,128
    
    
    
    20,256
    
    
    
    20,259
    
    
    
    20,273
    
    
    
    20,362
    
    
    
    20,446Combined fixed charges
and preferred stock
dividends
    
    $
    115,564
    
    
    $
    127,165
    
    
    $
    65,198
    
    
    $
    79,197
    
    
    $
    185,356
    
    
    $
    383,763Ratio of income from
continuing operations
before fixed charges to
combined fixed charges
and preferred stock
dividends
    
    
    0.94:1
    
    
    
    0.98:1
    
    
    
    1.30:1
    
    
    
    1.48:1
    
    
    
    1.40:1
    
    
    
    1.22:1
#### John W. BRUNSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
41

C.7. Local Trends in Farm Income and Expenditures as Reported by Banks in Each RegionPercent

Farm income Farm household spending Farm capital sp

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same 

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2006: Q4... 35 27 38 17 54 29 34 4

2007: Q1... 21 29 50 11 50 38 19 4 Q2... 10 39 51 4 55 41 7 5 Q3... 2 32 66 2 50 48 5 4 Q4... 2 12 86 2 28 71 2 22008: Q1... 0 10 90 0 32 68 1 1 Q2... 6 17 77 6 27 67 6 2 Q3... 10 30 60 7 37 57 11 3 Q4... 46 23 31 26 46 27 35 3

Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2006: Q4... 25 43 32 8 62 29 18 6

2007: Q1... 18 38 44 5 59 36 14 5 Q2... 13 49 39 7 55 38 12 5 Q3... 6 38 56 5 52 44 8 5 Q4... 7 25 68 5 47 48 7 32008: Q1... 7 25 68 5 36 59 7 3 Q2... 8 35 57 8 40 51 12 4 Q3... 10 35 55 6 42 52 13 4 Q4... 36 36 29 31 45 24 42 3

Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA)

2006: Q4... 22 44 33 11 72 17 17 6

2007: Q1... 20 30 50 0 75 25 5 5 Q2... 10 15 75 5 70 25 10 4 Q3... 5 11 84 5 53 42 5 2 Q4... 5 0 95 11 42 47 11 22008: Q1... 5 29 67 10 43 48 14 2 Q2... 10 19 71 19 29 52 14 3 Q3... 16 37 47 22 39 39 16 4 Q4... 50 17 33 61 22 17 72 2 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. n.a. Not available. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00391-LTB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. DANIEL CANTER,

Defendant.

________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

________________________________________________________________________

BY ORDER OF JUDGE LEWIS T. BABCOCK

This will confirm that, pursuant to Defendant’s Notice of Disposition (Doc 28 - filed

May 17, 2012), a change of plea hearing is set Monday, June 25, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom C-401, Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse, 1929 Stout Street, Denver,

Colorado. Defendant must be present.

The trial preparation conference set June 14, 2012 and the trial set June 18, 2012

are VACATED.

Dated: June 8, 2012

Case 1:11-cr-00391-LTB Document 32 Filed 06/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 10(a)

                    SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made as of the 1st day of January, 2000,
between SAGA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation with its principal
office at 73 Kercheval Avenue, Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan 48236 (the
"Corporation"), and Edward K. Christian of Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan 48236
("Christian").

                                WITNESSETH THAT:

         WHEREAS, the Corporation and Christian entered into an Employment
Agreement dated as of April 8, 1997, amended as of December 8, 1998 (the
"Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the Corporation and Christian desire to amend paragraph 6 of
the Agreement;

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         1. The Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the existing paragraph
6 in its entirety with the following:

         "6. In addition to the salary specified in paragraph 4 and the cost of
living adjustment specified in paragraph 5, Christian shall be eligible for (a)
stock options in such amounts as shall be approved by the Board of Directors of
the Corporation from time to time and (b) bonuses in such amounts as shall be
determined pursuant to the terms of the Chief Executive Officer Annual Incentive
Plan of SAGA Communications, Inc., effective as of January 1, 2000, or as
otherwise determined by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, it being
agreed that Christian's aggregate compensation in any year under paragraphs 4, 5
and 6 hereof shall not be less than his average aggregate annual compensation
for 1994, 1995 and 1996 unless Christian's or the Corporation's performance
shall have declined substantially."

         2. Except as modified and amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect and is hereby ratified and affirmed.

                                                                               1
<PAGE>   2
         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
executed as of the day and year above written.

                                       SAGA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

                                       By /S/ Samuel D. Bush
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Samuel D. Bush, Vice President



                                       By /S/ Edward K. Christian
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Edward K. Christian

                                                                               2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 201 (Thursday, October 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 61430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24612]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Advisory Committee.
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to 
space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in 
advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials 
Advisory Committee.
    Date: December 8, 2008.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: Update on the Progress of the Implementation of the 
Clinical Trials Working Group and the Translational Research Working 
Group Reports.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center 
Drive, 6th Floor, Room 10, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Sheila A. Prindiville, MD, Director, 
Coordinating Center for Clinical Trials, Office of the Director, 
National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 
Executive Blvd., Suite 7043, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-5048, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3c3c1daddd7dac5c0f3ded2dadf9ddddadb9dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="85f5f7ecebe1ecf3f6c5e8e4ece9abebecedabe2eaf3">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.
    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent 
procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, 
including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected 
before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one 
form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, 
driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their 
visit.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 8, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-24612 Filed 10-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


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

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
RF Monolithics, Inc. on Form S-8 for the 1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the
1994 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan, the 1997 Equity Incentive Plan
and the 1999 Equity Incentive Plan of our report dated October 21, 1999,
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of RF Monolithics, Inc. for the year
ended August 31, 1999.


/s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
April 10, 2000
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 176 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 

Indian employment credit and the depreciation rules for property used 

predominantly within an Indian reservation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. COBURN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 

extend the Indian employment credit and the depreciation rules for property used predominantly within an 

Indian reservation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF INDIAN EMPLOY4 MENT CREDIT AND DEPRECIATION RULES 

5 FOR PROPERTY ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS. 

6 (a) EMPLOYMENT CREDIT.— 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 176 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 45A of the Internal 

2 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to Indian employ3 ment credit) is amended by striking subsection (f). 

4 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made 

5 by this subsection shall apply to taxable years begin6 ning after December 31, 2007. 

7 (b) DEPRECIATION RULES.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (j) of section 168 

9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 

10 property on Indian reservations) is amended by 

11 striking paragraph (8). 

12 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made 

13 by this subsection shall apply to property placed in 

14 service after December 31, 2007. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
#### Marshall’s Estate.

*Decedent’s estates*— Collateral *inheritance tax*— Domicile *of decedent*— Abandonment *of Pennsylvania residence*— Domicile *in another state.*

The claim' of the Commonwealth to collateral inheritance tax on the personal estate of a decedent was properly refused, where the lower court found that decedent had abandoned her residence in this State, with the intention of acquiring one in New York, and that she actually acquired her residence there before her death, and such findings were fully warranted by the evidence.

Argued March 9, 1915.

Appeal, No. 77, Jan. T., 1915, by Commonwealth, from judgment of O. C. Carbon Co., dismissing exceptions to decree in estate of Janet Rutherford Marshall, deceased.

Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Elkin, Stewart and Frazer, JJ.

Affirmed.

Appeal from appraisement of decedent’s estate for purposes of collateral inheritance tax. Before Barber, J.

The court found that the decedent prior to the date of her death had taken up her residence in New York and *580that her personal estate was, therefore, not subject to the collateral inheritance tax in Pennsylvania. The court dismissed exceptions to its decree sustaining the legatee’s exceptions to the appraisement. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appealed.

March 22, 1915:

*Error assigned,*among others, was the decree of the court.

*William Wilhelm*and *William M. Hargest,*Deputy Attorney General, with them, *Francis Shunk Brown,*Attorney General, for appellant.

*W. C. Thomas,*of *Freyman, Thomas & Branch,*with him *Charles Fox,*for appellees.

Per Curiam,

That Janet Rutherford Marshall had at one time been a resident of this State is conceded, and the claim of the Commonwealth to collateral inheritance tax on her personal estate is made upon the ground that her domicile continued here up to the time of her death, which occurred outside of the State. The court below found that she had abandoned her residence here, with the intention of acquiring one in New York, and that she actually had acquired a residence there in March, 1911. With this finding fully warranted by the evidence, the Commonwealth has no claim against her estate. We find nothing in the forty-two assignments of error calling for a resubmission to the court below of the single question of fact involved in the case.

Decree affirmed at appellant’s costs.
**
EXHIBIT 33.1 

**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA**

**PURSUANT TO ITEM 1122 OF REGULATION AB**

**FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA**

Date: March 24, 2020             

The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of First National Bank of Omaha (the “Servicer”), hereby certifies as follows:

(1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing its compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in 17 C.F.R. § 229.1122(d)(“Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB”), except for servicing criteria specified in (1)(iii); (2)(iii) and (vi); 3(iii) and (iv); and 4(x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii) of Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB, which the Servicer has determined areinapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the credit card asset backed securities transactions issued by First National Master Note Trust (the “Platform”) being serviced (such applicable criteria, after giving effect tothe exceptions identified above, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019 relating to the servicing of the Platform; 

(2) The Servicer used the servicing criteria in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria;

(3) The Servicer is in compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria relating to the Platform as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2019 in all material respects; and 

(4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accountingfirm, has issued an attestation report for the Platform on the Servicer’s assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019. 
**

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA, as ServicerBy /s/ Anthony R. Cerasoli      
Anthony R. Cerasoli,

Senior Vice Presidentand Treasurer

[Signature page to Report on Assessment of Compliance 

of First National Bank of Omaha]