alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### G. W. Davis v. Diamond & Smart.

(No. 1115, Op. Book No. 3, p. 523.)

Appeal from Camp County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 590. *Injunction; is proper remedy'to prevent sale of property under mortgage, when, etc.; purchaser of mortgaged property is a necessary party in suit to foreclose mortgage.*Appellant Davis obtained a judgment against one Bolton, and under an execution issued upon the judgment had some cotton sold, and he became the purchaser of it, and had it in possession. After appellant had thus purchased and taken possession of the cotton, appellees, in a suit against Bolton, to which suit appellant Davis was not a party, obtained a judgment foreclosing a mortgage which they held upon the cotton, and an order of sale was issued thereon, and the cotton seized thereunder. Appellant brought this suit, asking for an injunction to restrain the sale of the cotton. Upon a hearing of the case in the county court, the injunction was dissolved and the suit dismissed. *Held,*the court erred in dissolving the injunction. Appellant held by purchase the equity of redemption, and was in possession of the cotton upon which appellees had a lien, and he was a necessary party to the suit instituted by them for a foreclosure. [Buchanan v. Monroe, 22 Tex. 537; Hall v. Hall, 11 Tex. 547; Mills v. Traylor, 30 Tex. 11.] Being a necessary party, the judgment of foreclosure obtained by appellees against *313Bolton could not affect his right. The property having been seized under this judgment, and being about to be sold, his proper remedy was by injunction. [Floyd v. Borland, 33 Tex. 777.]

November 11, 1882.

Reversed and remanded.
[No. 44462-0-I.

Division One.

March 27, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. E.H., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 98-8-08055-0, Peter Jarvis, J., entered February 9, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41258

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY JIMERSON, also known as AJ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:01-CR-31-3

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

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John W. Tunnell, court-appointed counsel for appellant

Anthony Jimerson, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a

brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Jimerson has not filed a response to counsel’s brief. 

Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief shows

that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is
No. 02-41258

-2-

excused from further responsibilities herein, and this appeal is

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5086]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       SOLUTION TO SAVE MEDICARE

  (Mr. HOKE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, here is the problem. The fund is projected to 
be exhausted in 2001. Signed by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services. Medicare is 
going broke. Projected to be exhausted, 2001. Here is our solution.
  We increase spending from $4,700 to $6,300 per capita, at the same 
time slowing the rate of growth from about 10.5 to 5.5 percent. We save 
Medicare, we balance the budget, and we preserve the blessings of 
liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
  Here is the President's plan.
  Let me go over this one more time. Here is the problem. The fund is 
going to be exhausted in 2001. Here is the solution. We are increasing 
spending while reducing the rate of growth. And here is the President's 
plan.
  Yes, that is an ostrich.

                          ____________________
```
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY

STATE OF DELAWARE, )

) ID. Nos.: 1203003795

v. ) 1304023113

)

JAMES O. JENNINGS. )

ORDER

This 11th day of August, 2014, upon consideration of the Defendant’s Motion

for Reduction of Sentence and the record of this case, it appears that: 

1. The Defendant, James O. Jennings, was convicted of two counts of drug

dealing on June 26, 2013 in criminal action numbers IK12-04-0123 and K13-05-

0147I. In IK12-04-0123 the defendant was sentenced to 15 years at supervision level

5 with credit for 22 days previously served, suspended after 2 years, 6 months for

supervision level 4 Crest Program. In K-13-05-0147I the defendant was sentenced to

8 years at supervision level 5, suspended after 2 years, 6 months, followed by level

3. In accordance with Title 11, Section 3901(d) of the Delaware Code, the level 5

sentences of confinement were consecutive. 

2. Section 3901(d) has recently been amended, with an effective date of

July 9, 2014, to read in pertinent part as follows: “The court shall direct whether the

sentence of confinement of any criminal defendant by any court of this State shall be

made to run concurrently or consecutively with any other sentence of confinement

imposed on such criminal defendant.”
State v. Jennings

ID. Nos. 1203003795 and 1304023113

August 11, 2014

1

State v. Ismaaeel, 840 A.2d 644, 654 (Del. Super. 2004) (citing State v. Nixon, 46 A.2d

874, 875 (Del.Gen.Sess.1946)). 

2

3. The Defendant contends that the amended language of Section 3901(d)

should be applied retroactively to his sentences, and he requests that the Court direct

that the level 5 sentences of confinement in the two above-mentioned criminal action

numbers be served concurrently. 

4. Pursuant to Delaware case law, there is a presumption that a statute will

not be applied retroactively unless the statute clearly contains express language

indicating that the legislature intended a retroactive application.1

5. The Court finds that Section 3901(d), as amended, was not intended by

the Delaware General Assembly to have a retroactive effect. Therefore, the

Defendant’s motion is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________________________

 President Judge

oc: Prothonotary

cc: Nicole S. Hartman

Mr. James O. Jennings

File
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 Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 4, 2010.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis**                     (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:                

*1. Kendall L. Combs and Patricia A. Combs*, both of Hollister, Missouri; to retain control of Branson Bancshares, Inc., Branson, Missouri, and thereby indirectly retain control of Branson Bank, Branson, Missouri.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Sepetmber 14, 2010.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-23229 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### J. A. Fellrath v. A. P. Gilder.

(No. 1265, Op. Book No. 2, p. 304.)

Appeal from Coryelle County.

Opinion by

Walker, R. S., P. J.

§ 1060. *Disqualification of judge by relationship; certiorari granted by disqualified judge; disposition to be made of the case; relief in equity in such case.*A judge is disqualified to sit in any case where either of the parties may be connected with him in the third degree by affinity or consanguinity. [Const, art. V, sec. 11; R. S. 1040, 1065, 1090,1538.] A *certiorari*granted by a county judge thus disqualified is a null and void act. [Garrett v. Gaines, 6 Tex. 435; Chambers v. Hodges, 23 Tex. 104.] The disqualification of the judge extends to all such judicial orders, judgments or fiats as involve the exercise of the power, which is conferred upon the- judge to hear and determine upon the rights of the parties which may be involved in the case which shall be presented for his action. It extends to all remedial writs granted by a judge. When a *certiorari*has been granted by a disqualified judge, and the case has been docketed in his court, he has no power to dismiss the proceeding, notwithstanding it is a void proceeding. All the action that he can legally take in the case is to transfer it to the district court. [5 Peck, 483; 9 Peck, 287; 21 Peck, 101; 3 Cush. 252; 23 Ala. 85.] Even the consent of the parties could not confer upon him the authority to do more than transfer the case. [Chambers v. Hodges, 23 Tex. 104; Oakley v. Aspinnal, 3 Comst. 547.] In the case last cited it was said: “The party who desired it might be permitted to take the hazard of a biased decision, if he alone were to suffer for his folly, but the state cannot endure the scandal and reproach which would be visited upon the judiciary in consequence.” The proper direction to be given to the cause is to transfer it to the district court, and whatever objections to the validity of the proceed*600ing which brought the case to the county court can there be properly heard and determined. [Const, art. V, sec. 16.] Under this provision of the constitution, the district court has original jurisdiction of such a case, and would have the power, upon proper and sufficient showing made by the plaintiff in the certiorari, to grant him such relief in the premises as equity might entitle him to, so as to enable him to maintain and have a hearing upon his *certiorari.*

February 23, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made to thatcertain Pooling and Servicing  Agreement  dated as of August 1, 2011,by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland LoanServices, A Division of PNC Bank, NA, as a Pooled Special Servicer, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Providence Place Mall Loan Special Servicer,U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, andTrimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Operating Advisor, with respect toCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series DBUBS 2011-LC3 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Marthinsen, Managing Director of Special Servicing dohereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Providence Place Mall Loan Special Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period hasbeen made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Providence Place Mall Loan SpecialServicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in allmaterial respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Marthinsen

Daniel Marthinsen, ManagingDirector

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Annual Report of Postmedia Network Canada Corp. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended August 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas Lamb,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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 the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Douglas Lamb                                    
|Douglas Lamb                                        
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Dated: November 27, 2013.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
AYI-2014.08.31-EX10(iii)A(58)












AMENDMENT No. 4
TO
ACUITY BRANDS, INC
AMENDED AND RESTATED SEVERANCE AGREEMENT




THIS AMENDMENT made and entered into as of the 27th day of October, 2014, by and between ACUITY BRANDS, INC. (the “Company”) and MARK A. BLACK (“Executive”);


W I T N E S S E T H


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into a Severance Agreement, dated as of November 19, 2008 (“Severance Agreement”), and amended as of October 28, 2009, March 30, 2010, and March 28, 2014, providing for the payment of certain compensation and benefits to Executive if Executive’s employment is terminated under certain circumstances; and


WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Severance Agreement in the manner hereinafter provided;


NOW, THEREFORE, the Severance Agreement is hereby amended, as follows:


1.
Section 4.2 is hereby amended by deleting “80%” from clause (i) and substituting “90%” in lieu thereof.
2.
This Amendment to the Severance Agreement shall be effective as of the date of this Amendment.  Except as hereby modified, the Severance Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.


COMPANY


EXECUTIVE                     ACUITY BRANDS, INC.






______________________________        By:  ______________________________
MARK A. BLACK                            Vernon J. Nagel
        Chairman, President and CEO
#### FORMAN MORTGAGE CO. v. FIRST JERSEY NATIONAL BANK.

April 18, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# CMSAF speaks to future, mission priorities during first visit to LAAFB

              - Published  July 2, 2021
              -                             By Chip Pons                                                    
              - Space and Missile Systems Center Public Affairs

**LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) --  **
Airmen and Guardians from the Space and Missile Systems Center and the 61st Air Base Group welcomed Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force **JoAnne S. Bass** during a visit to **Los Angeles Air Force Base**, July 1.For her first official visit with the men and women of SMC and the 61st ABG, Bass was immersed in the critical space acquisition mission and met with Airmen and Guardians who expertly carry it out in support of U.S. Air and Space Force operations.“I couldn’t be more excited to be here and that we have a Space Force because now, we can finally put the proper resources and personnel toward advancing the space mission,” Bass said. “Because if we lose in space, the nation loses.”Bass, who is the 19th CMSAF and the first female appointed to the highest noncommissioned officer position in the U.S. Air Force, spoke to Airmen and Guardians during an enlisted all-call about the importance of her priorities – people, readiness and culture.“I will spend a lot of time on the people aspect because our people are the one competitive advantage we have against our adversaries. Period,” said Bass. “No other Nation has the caliber of people that we do.”“In order to keep the right talent in the U.S. Air Force, we have to make sure that we have a culture and a climate where people are excited to serve,” Bass continued. “And that requires us to make changes to ensure our personnel feel empowered and valued.”Bass charged those in attendance to read and embody the Air Force Chief of Staff **Gen. CQ Brown, Jr.**’s strategic approach, **Accelerate, Change or Lose**, in order to remain the most dominant and respected Air Force in the world.After the all-call, Bass publicly recognized the accomplishments of several SMC and 61st ABG outstanding performers alongside their supervisors and thanked them for their dedication to the U.S. Air Force and **U.S. Space Force**. In addition, service members had the opportunity to directly engage with Bass on relevant and timely subjects and share their personal perspectives and honest feedback on service-wide initiatives.“As we head into the **long weekend**, I want each of you to go home and thank your families and support systems from my husband and me,” Bass said. “It isn’t lost on me how much they sacrifice – sometimes more than us – so we can do our jobs as effectively we can.”

AFWNUSAFAFAir ForceLAAFBLos Angeles Air Force BaseCMSAFChief Master Sgt. of the Air Force JoAnne S. BassvisitOne Air Force61st Air BaseSpace and Missile Systems Centerpeoplereadinessculture
| 1. | I am the Chief Executive Officer of chatAND, Inc. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Attached to this certification is Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, a periodic report (the “periodic report”) filed by the issuer with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), which contains financial statements. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·    | The periodic report containing the financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ·    | The information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer for the periods presented. |
|--------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| April 12, 2013 | By:    | /s/ Michael Lebor       |   |
|----------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|           |   | Michael Lebor           |   |
|           |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
[No. 18624-5-III.

Division Three.

April 20, 2000.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Nick L. Terry, *Respondent,*and Kimberly Rae Terry, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grant County, No. 97-3-00464-1, Evan E. Sperline, J., entered July 28, 1999. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Kurtz, C.J., and Sweeney, J.
#### LAWRENCE CLARKE v. CLAYBURN CONTRACTING CO.

Dec. 20, 1979.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4977]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 4, LINE-ITEM 
                                VETO ACT

  Mr. GOSS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report 
(Rept. No. 104-121) on the resolution (H. Res. 147) providing for 
consideration of the bill (S. 4) to grant the power to the President to 
reduce budget authority, and for other purposes, which was referred to 
the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

                          ____________________
```