alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Humberto MARULANDA, Appellant, v. Nancy Valle MENDEZ, Appellee.

No. 15167.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

Dec. 29, 1972.

*129Lauro Benavides, Laredo, for appellant.

Charles D. Butts, Sam C. Bashara, San Antonio, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has perfected his appeal from an order setting aside an order of dismissal and reinstating the cause upon the docket of said court. It is obvious from an examination of the transcript that said order is not a final judgment; and therefore, the threshold question is presented as to whether we have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from such interlocutory order.

In North East Independent School District v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex.1966), the Supreme Court stated the applicable rule as follows: “We have steadfastly adhered through the years to the rule, with certain exceptions not applicable here, that an appeal may be prosecuted only from a final judgment and that to be final a judgment must dispose of all issues and parties in a case.” Accordingly, the appellate courts of Texas are not authorized to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order unless one is specially authorized by legislative enactment. Stalco, Inc. v. Zero Refrigerated Lines, Inc., 390 S.W.2d 476 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1965, writ ref’d); Thomas v. Peoples National Bank, 380 S.W.2d 789 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1964, writ dism’d); Mueller v. Banks, 317 S.W.2d 256 (Tex.Civ.App.—1958, no writ); 4 McDonald, Texas Civil Practice, Judgments, Section 17.03.2; Appellate Procedure in Texas, Appealable Judgments and Orders, Section 2.4.

There is no statute specially authorizing an appeal from an order reinstating a cause. The effect of an order of reinstatement is the same as an order overruling a motion to dismiss, which amounts to no more than an interlocutory order. Fischer v. Williams, 160 Tex. 342, 331 S.W.2d 210 (1960); Appellate Procedure in Texas, Section 2.5 *[2],*Therefore, we do not have power to review the order complained of herein. Hall v. City of Austin, 450 S.W.2d 836 (Tex.1970); Steeple Oil and Gas Corporation v. Amend, 394 S.W.2d 789 (Tex.1965); Dimerling v. Grodhaus, 152 Tex. 548, 261 S.W.2d 561 (1953).

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J O R G E A Y A L A - C O RN E J O , a . k. a . J or ge A ya l a, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 12- 50098 D . C. N o . 2 : 1 1 - c r - 0 0 8 4 2 - PSG ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia P hi l i p S . G ut i e rr e z , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 12, 2013 ** B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , R E IN H A R D T , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J or ge A y a l a - C orne

j o appe a l s f

r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nta nd chal l enges hi s gui l ty- pl eaconv i ct i on and 5 1-m on th sent ence for bei ng an i l l egal a lie n f o u n din th e U n ite dS ta te s f o llo w in g d e p o rta tio n , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . 

# FI LED MA R 22 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 50098 2 § 1326. P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ), A ya la-C o rn ejo ’s c ouns e l ha s f

i l e d abr i e f

s t a t i ng tha tthe r e ar e no gr ounds f orr e l i e f , a l ong w i th a m o t i o n t o w i th d raw as co u n sel o f reco rd . A yal a-C o rn ej o h as fi l eda p ro se s up p le m e n ta l b r ie f

, an dth e g o v e rn m e n t h a s f ile da n a n s w e r in g b r ie f

. A y a l a - C orne

j o w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o appe a l hi s c onvi c t i on, w i th the e xc e pt i on of an appe a l ba s e d on ac l a i m tha thi s pl e aw a s i nvol unt ary . H e a l s o w a i ve d the r ig h t to ap p e a l h is s e n te n c e , w ith th e e x c e p tio n o f th e c o u rt’s c a lc u la tio n o f h is c r im in a l h is to ryc a te g o ry . O u rin d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r dp u r s u an t to P e n s o n v . O h io , 48 8 U . S . 75 , 80 (198 8), di sc l oses no ar gu abl e groun ds for r el i ef as to A y a la - C o rn e

jo ’s p le ao rh is c r im in a l h is to ryc a te g o ry . W e th e r e f o r e a f f irm a s to tho se i ss ues. W e di sm i ss the re m ai nd erof the appeal i n l i gh tof the val i d app ea l w a iv e r s . Se e U

ni te d States v . W

at s on , 5 8 2 F .3 d9 7 4 , 9 8 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED . A F F IR M E D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02418-WYD-KMT FTR - Courtroom C-201

Date: June 21, 2012 Deputy Clerk, Nick Richards

VANESSA DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

Alexander Simanovsky (by phone)

v.

BUDGET CONTROL SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

Daniel Nathan Chapman

Irvin Allen Borenstein

COURTROOM MINUTES / MINUTE ORDER

MOTION HEARING

Court in session: 1:30 p.m. 

Court calls case. Appearances of counsel.

Motion Hearing is called regarding Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

[Doc. No. 18, filed May 31, 2012].

The court notes the filing of Plaintiff’s Certificate of Discovery [Doc. No. 20, filed June

20, 2012] indicating plaintiff has submitted responses to defendant’s first interrogatories,

first request for admissions, and first request for production of documents.

The court also notes plaintiff’s responses are late. Requests for Admission were

deemed admitted as of May 12, 2012 in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P 36(a)(3). To the

extent plaintiff’s submitted responses do not admit all requests for admissions submitted

by defendants, the objections or denials are stricken.

It is ORDERED: Defendant’s Motion to Compel [18] is GRANTED. Fed. R. Civ. P 37

sanctions are appropriate in this case and will be awarded in the

amount of $500.00 against plaintiff and her attorney, Alexander

Simanovsky, jointly for failure to timely respond and necessitating

the filing of the Motion to Compel [18].

It is ORDERED: Due to interrogatories being signed by counsel and not signed and

notarized by Ms. Davis, plaintiff shall submit as a supplemental

Case 1:11-cv-02418-WYD-KMT Document 26 Filed 06/21/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

discovery response, the responses to interrogatories duly sworn

and notarized by Ms. Davis on or before June 28, 2012. 

 It is ORDERED: The Dispositive Motions deadline currently set for June 27, 2012 is

VACATED and extended to July 25, 2012. 

It is ORDERED: Defendant’s Oral Motion to Obtain Affidavit from Mason Braning is

DENIED. The deposition of Mr. Braning has already occurred and

sworn testimony is sufficient in place of an affidavit.

Court in Recess: 1:40 p.m. 

Hearing concluded.

Total In-Court Time 00:10

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

Case 1:11-cv-02418-WYD-KMT Document 26 Filed 06/21/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 162 (Monday, August 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 51854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21000]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, August 
26, 2010 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
August 26, 2010 will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: August 19, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21000 Filed 8-19-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
#### The State, ex rel. Industrial Commission of Ohio, *v.*Steel, Mayor.

(No. 25439

Decided June 26, 1935.)

*91
      *Mr. John W. Briclcer,*attorney general, *Mr. William S. Evatt*and *Mr. Thomas' M. Miller,*for relator.

*Mr. E. W. Ankrom,*city solicitor, for respondent.

*92By the Court.

In onr opinion the bonded indebtedness here under consideration is not, and cannot be, affected by the adoption of the amendment to Section 2, Article XII of the Ohio Constitution, for the reason that even such constitutional amendment may not impair the obligation of existing contracts.

Our conclusion is that outstanding bonds of a political subdivision issued prior to the effective date of the constitutional ten-mill limitation imposed by Section 2, Article XII, of the Ohio Constitution now in effect, may be refunded to the extent of the unpaid principal balance then due thereon, notwithstanding the fact that the ten-mill limitation may be thereby exceeded.

It is not necessary, therefore, to consider other questions presented or other contentions made by counsel.

The demurrer to the petition will be overruled, and, respondent not desiring to plead further, the writ of mandamus will be allowed.

*Writ allowed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Jones, J., not participating.
**Exhibit 24.1****POWER OF ATTORNEY****KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:**That each person whose signature appears below, as a Director or Officer of Bakers Footwear Group,Inc. (the “Company”), a Missouri corporation, with its principle offices at 2815 Scott Avenue, St.Louis, Missouri 63103, does hereby make, constitute and appoint PETER A. EDISON or CHARLES R.DANIEL, III, or either one of them acting alone, his or her true and lawful attorneys, with fullpower of substitution and resubstitution, in his or her name, place and stead, in any and allcapacities, to execute and sign the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, for fiscal year endedFebruary 2, 2008, and any and all amendments thereto, and documents in connection therewith, to befiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, orthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, giving and granting unto said attorneys full powerand authority to do and perform such actions as fully as they might have done or could do ifpersonally present and executing any of said documents.Dated andeffective as of the 1st of May 2008.   **Signature** **Title**   /s/ Peter A. Edison (Peter A. Edison) Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, President andDirector (Principal Executive Officer)   /s/ Charles R. Daniel, III (Charles R. Daniel, III) Vice President — Finance, Controller, Treasurer and Secretary(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)   /s/ Andrew N. Baur Director   (Andrew N. Baur)     /s/ Timothy F. Finley Director   (Timothy F. Finley)     /s/ Harry E. Rich Director   (Harry E. Rich)     /s/ Scott C. Schnuck Director   (Scott C. Schnuck)
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14/15d-14(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Timothy D. Hart, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
on Form 10-K of First National Master Note Trust (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange
Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in
preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and
their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by U.S. Bank National Association.



---

|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                                              
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2014 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Timothy D. Hart
Timothy D. Hart, Senior Vice President, First National Bank of
Omaha (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the servicer)

[Signature page to Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14/15d-14(d)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934]
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00407-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. EDWIN LEHI, JR.,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon a review of the file. To ensure that all

pre-trial phases of the case are complete before the commencement of the jury trial, it is

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by Wednesday, November 16,

2011, and responses to these motions shall be filed by Monday, November 28, 2011.

It is

FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on all pending motions, if any, and final trial

preparation conference will not be set at this time. The parties shall contact Chambers

should a hearing become necessary. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that a 3-day jury trial is set for Monday, December 5,

2011, at 9:00 a.m. in courtroom A-1002.

Case 1:11-cr-00407-REB-DW Document 21 Filed 10/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
-2-

Dated: October 25, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

WILEY Y. DANIEL

CHIEF U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cr-00407-REB-DW Document 21 Filed 10/25/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) UNIT Company ) ) Under Contract No. W911KB-14-C-0021 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60926

Mr. Michael J. Fall

President Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Kyle B. Davis, Esq. Carl F. Olson, Esq.

EngineerTrial Attorneys U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska ORDER OF DISMISSAL The appeal has been withdrawn. Accordingly, it is dismissed from the Board's docket with prejudice. Dated: 19 July 2017

Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANo. 60926, Appeal ofUNIT Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          17,535
<SECURITIES>                                   224,981
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,484,012
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               319,207
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,045,735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          326,028
<BONDS>                                      8,484,012
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       184,960
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,735
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,045,735
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               254,329
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               257,903
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,574)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (715)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,859)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 1626 New
York Associates Limited Partnership and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1

       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       7,990,000 <F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  691,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (315,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     213,499,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (104,239,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             140,664,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    263,883,000 <F2>
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                (131,648,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               140,664,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,071,000 <F3>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,788,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,363,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,802,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         13,802,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                13,802,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                10,367.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                10,367.16
<FN>
<F1> Cash includes $7,865,000 of restricted cash.
<F2> Includes accrued interest of $53,577,000.
<F3> Revenues include gain on sale of property of $17,046,000.
        


</TABLE>
(173 La. 502)

#### STATE v. RYLAND.

No. 31292.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 3, 1931.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1931.

John R. Hunter, of Alexandria, for appellant.

Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., E. R. Schowalter, Asst. Atty. Gen., and David I. Garrett, Dist. Atty., and J. B. Thornhill, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Monroe, for the State.

O’NIELL, C. J.

The only bill of exception in this case is one pertaining to the testimony of an attorney at law, who, as a witness for the state, related a conversation which he had had with the defendant. The objection urged was that the witness had been the attorney and legal advisor of the defendant, and that the statements of the defendant to the attorney were privileged communications. When the objection was made the prosecuting attorney asked the witness whether he had been the attorney or legal advisor of the defendant, and the witness replied that he had not been the attorney or legal advisor of the defendant. Thereupon, the attorney for the defendant asked permission to take further testimony on that subject out of. the presence of the jury. The judge denied the request, but suggested that the attorney for the defendant cross-examine the witness on the subject, which the attorney declined to do. No reason was given for the request that the testimony on the qualification of the witness should be taken out of the presence of the jury, and no evidence was offered on that subject, except the testimony of the witness himself, which showed that his testimony was admissible.

The verdict and sentence are affirmed.