alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
644 A.2d 580

#### IN THE MATTER OF BRETT K. KATES, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

July 7, 1994.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court, recommending that BRETT K. KATES of CHERRY HILL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1987, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months, for failure to act with reasonable diligence, in violation of *RPC*1.3; failure to comply with a client’s reasonable request for information about the status of a matter, in violation of *RPC*1.4(a); and failure to cooperate fully with the ethics authorities, in violation of *RPC*8.1(b), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board are adopted and BRETT K. KATES is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months, effective August 1, 1994, and until further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he comply with Regulation 28 of the Administrative Guidelines Governing Suspended Attorneys; and it is further

*103ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7231 

To provide regulatory relief for conventional marginally producing oil and 

gas wells from the Environmental Protection Agency’s ‘‘Methane Rule’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 10, 2018 

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide regulatory relief for conventional marginally producing oil and gas wells from the Environmental Protection Agency’s ‘‘Methane Rule’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Methane Rule Relief 

5 Act of 2018’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF METHANE RULE. 

7 The final rule titled ‘‘Oil and Natural Gas Sector: 

8 Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modi9 fied Sources’’ (81 Fed. Reg. 35824, June 3, 2016), and 

10 the document titled ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7231 IH

1 the Oil and Natural Gas Industry’’ (October 2016), pub2 lished by the Environmental Protection Agency, shall not 

3 apply with respect to— 

4 (1) any oil well that has a maximum daily aver5 age oil production, during any 12-month consecutive 

6 time period, that does not exceed 15 barrels of oil 

7 per day; 

8 (2) any natural gas well that has a maximum 

9 daily average gas production, during any 12-month 

10 consecutive time period, that does not exceed 90,000 

11 cubic feet per day; or 

12 (3) any emissions source covered by the rule 

13 that is associated with an oil well described in para14 graph (1) or a natural gas well described in para15 graph (2). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles GREENWOOD.

No. 2010-KK-2359.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 25, 2010.

In re Greenwood, Charles; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 09-6549; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-K-901.

Granted. The district court’s ruling granting the defendant’s motion in limine is reversed. The evidence sought to be admitted is admissible as other crimes, wrongs or acts under La.Code Evid. Art. 404(B), and is relevant to prove the defendant’s requisite knowledge and intent with respect to the charged offenses, La.Rev. Stat. 14:95.1 and La.Rev.Stat. 40:967(F). Furthermore, under La.Code Evid. art. 403, the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

JOHNSON and WEIMER, JJ., would deny.
#### STATE ex rel. Thaddeus A. WILLIAMSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2596.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Williamson, Thaddeus A.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 404770; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW1348.

Denied.
Order filed October 27, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00423

- CV

____________ ASHLEY WILKERSON , Appellant

V. ELIZABETH ARRINGTON, M.D., RAKEL BEALL, M .D. AND MOLLIE GORDON, M.D. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015

- 66027



### ORDER
This appeal is from an order signed May 16, 2016 . Appellant filed a notice of appeal on May 23 , 2016 . Appellant filed an affidavit of indigenc e on June 3 , 2016,
which this court referred to the trial court

.
On August 11 , 2016, the trial court filed a supplemental clerk’s record which
indicates a contest to the affidavit was filed but no hearing was held nor findingsentered. In light of this record, and pursuant to Texas R ule of Civil Procedure 145,

appellant is deemed indigent and may proceed without payment of costs.
Accordingly, the Harris County District Clerk is directed to file the clerk ’s
record within 30 days of the date of this order.

PER CURIAM
No. 11,434.

#### Clemans *v.*Kersteller.

Filed Nov. 24, 1884.

Pbomissoby *Note.*— Mortgage.—Assignment *of.*— Pleading.—In an action by an assignee upon a note and mortgage, an averment in the complaint that the payee “sold and assigned in writing said note and mortgage to this plaintiff, which endorsement by ” the payee “ is in these words, to wit,” followed by copies of the written endorsement upon the note and mortgage, is equivalent to an averment that the note and mortgage were “ assigned by endorsement in writing,” a*d is, therefore, a sufficient averment of the tight of the assignee to maintain the action.

From the Kosciusko Circuit Court.

*A. Clemans*and *C.*Clemans, for appellant.

Zollars, J.

Appellant appeals from a judgment upon a note and a decree foreclosing a mortgage given to secure the same. The sufficiency of the complaint is called in question for the first time by an assignment of error in this court that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of appellee, as the endorsee of the note and mortgage. it was held in the case of *Reed*v. *Carr,*59 Ind. 299, cited by appellant, that the statement “ assigned in writing ” is not equivalent to the averment *“*assigned by endorsement in writing,” but that is not this case. Here it- is clearly shown that the note and mortgage were assigned to appellee by endorsement in writing. The averments are : *“*That afterwards said Minnich (payee) sold and assigned in writing said note and mortgage to this plaintiff, which endorsement by said Minnich is in these words, to wit: F. V. B. Minnich, on the note; and on the mortgage as follows.” Here follows a full and complete assignment and endorsement on the mortgage. These averments, we think, are entirely sufficient. We make no ruling as to whether or not the assignment of error properly presents the question here decided.

As no other defect in the complaint is pointed put or suggested, the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000738

12-APR-2019

08:03 AM
#### Donna Ann RENNA, former wife, Appellant, v. Gregory Scott RENNA, former husband, Appellee.

No. 1D10-5586.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 10, 2010.

R. Flint Crump of the Law Office of R. Flint Crump, Gainesville, for Appellant.

Patricia M. Lee, St. Petersburg, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. *See Hoffman v. O’Connor,*802 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); *Demont v. Demont,*24 So.3d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

WEBSTER, HAWKES, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

J.P. Morgan Chase CommercialMortgage Securities Corp. 

383 Madison Avenue

31st Floor

New York, New York 10179

 

Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-C21, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C21

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of July 1, 2014 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

  

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
#### ESTES BAYPOINT PROPERTIES INCORPORATED, Tighe Estes, Tague Estes, Troy Estes, and Janice Estes, Appellants, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee of the Lehman Brothers Small Balance Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, 2007-2, Appellee.

No. 4D10-3887.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 3, 2011.

Philippe Symonovicz of Law Offices of Philippe Symonovicz, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Andrew D. Rafkin of Broad And Cassel, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Based on appellee’s confession of error, we reverse the final judgment entered on August 24, 2010 and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.

GROSS, C.J., WARNER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            17,700
<SECURITIES>                                   6,275,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,522,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (119,000)
<INVENTORY>                                            0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,989,600 
<PP&E>                                         4,672,900 
<DEPRECIATION>                                (1,215,900)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                11,446,600 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            680,200 
<BONDS>                                                0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0 
<PREFERRED>                                            0 
<COMMON>                                       5,104,800 
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,154,600 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  11,446,600 
<SALES>                                        2,475,700 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,557,200 
<CGS>                                          1,174,900 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,262,200 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  295,000 
<INCOME-TAX>                                     116,100 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0 
<CHANGES>                                              0 
<NET-INCOME>                                     178,900 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .05 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .05 
                                                         

</TABLE>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-11551

Conference Calendar

 

RICHARD TERRANCE AYERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES A. COLLINS, Director, TDCJ; 

DEBRA LILES, Assistant Director Operational

Review of TDCJ-ID; STANLEY WILSON, Chaplain,

TDCJ Robertson Unit,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:96-CV-1-BA

- - - - - - - - - -

August 18, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Terrance Ayers, Texas prisoner # 468361, appeals 

the dismissal of his civil rights action against James Collins,

the Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and

Deborah Liles, the Assistant Director for Operational Review, in

their individual capacities. He argues that he was deprived of

food that conformed to the requirements of the Hindu religion and
No. 96-11551

-2-

that met nutritional standards equal to those of inmates who were

members of the Christian faith.

We have reviewed the record and the brief and hold that the

magistrate judge did not err. Although Ayers has alleged

personal involvement by Collins and Liles, the facts presented at

the hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 182

(5th Cir. 1985), do not bear out his allegations. Ayers alleged

that Collins changed the food policy; however, he did not allege

facts that indicate that the change in policy was detrimental. 

He stated that he could request “vegetables only” in the food

line and that his food was delivered to his cell when he was in

lockdown. Ayers has not established a causal connection between

the policy, as he describes it, and the limited instances during

his stay in lockdown in which there was fault with his meal. See

Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 1987). As to

Liles, Ayers has not alleged facts to support a causal connection

between the policy governing the security of inmates in lockdown

and the alleged First Amendment violation. Id. 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-25-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-25-1998
<CASH>                                             625 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,512 
<ALLOWANCES>                                       437 
<INVENTORY>                                     24,641 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,534 
<PP&E>                                          57,302 
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,591 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,041 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,399 
<BONDS>                                         52,521 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                     14,042 
<COMMON>                                            59 
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,375 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   115,041 
<SALES>                                         34,054 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,054 
<CGS>                                           26,558 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,558 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,406 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,124 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     11 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         5 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  6 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                         6 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.04)             
                                             




</TABLE>
No. 14,058.

#### McKittrick *v.*Glenn et al.

New Trial. — As *of Bight.*— Action *to Cancel Deed and Bevesl Tille.*— In an action by a grantor to set aside a deed and revest title, on the ground that the conveyance had been obtained by fraud and undue means, a party is entitled to a new trial as a matter of right under the statute.

Prom the Vanderburgh Superior Court.

*J. E. Iglehart*and *E. Taylor,*for appellant.

*D. B. Kumler, A. Gilchrist, C. A. JDeBruler*and *Q. F. Denhy,*for appellees.

Niblack, C. J.

On the 4th day of September, 1884, Mrs. Eliza McKittrick, of the city-of Evansville, executed a deed conveying certain real estate in the counties of Vanderburgh and Ripley, respectively, and all of the personal property •owned by her, to William Glenn and John H. Ebersole, of the city of Cincinnati, in trust for certain alleged and specified purposes.

This was an action by Mrs. McKittrick against Glenn and Ebersole to set aside that deed, upon the ground that, owing to mental infirmities resulting from advanced age and other causes, and to undue influences exercised upon her, she was wrongfully and improperly induced to execute it.

Other persons named as beneficiaries under the deed were also made parties defendants.

Glenn and Ebersole answered separately, forming issues upon the complaint. They also filed a cross-complaint, averring that they were the owners of the real estate described in the deed of conveyance, in trust and for the uses and purposes therein described ;■ that the plaintiff had set up an adverse claim to such real estate, thereby casting a cloud upon their title. Wherefore they demanded that their title might be quieted.

*28Filed Oct. 23, 1888.

To this cross-complaint there was an answer in general denial. There was a finding and judgment for the defendants; also, in favor of Glenn and Ebersole upon their cross-complaint.

Mrs. McKittrick thereupon moved the court for a new trial as of right, under the provisions of section 1064, R. S. 1881, but the court, construing that section as not applicable to a case like this, refused to grant the motion.

It has often been held that in an ordinary suit to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent, for the purpose of subjecting the lands attempted to be conveyed by it to the claims of creditors, a party is not entitled to a new trial as of right under the section of the statute in question; but this is not a proceeding of that character, its object being to revest the title in lands in one from whom a conveyance had been obtained by fraud and undue means. In a case of this latter kind, a party is of right entitled to a new trial. *Warburton*v. *Crouch,*108 Ind. 83.

The motion of Mrs. McKittrick ought, consequently, to have been sustained. ■

The judgment is reversed, at the costs of Glenn and Ebersole, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1996
<CASH>                                           9,495
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         325,085
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           328,281
<LOANS>                                        827,685
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,732
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,213,679
<DEPOSITS>                                     875,026
<SHORT-TERM>                                    76,755
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             14,684
<LONG-TERM>                                    155,465
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,689
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,213,679
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 28,314
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               12,381
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                40,695
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              19,443
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,801
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           15,894
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      327
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 13,616
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,765
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,629
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,629
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.93
<LOANS-NON>                                      6,404
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 2,325
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  4,966
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,630
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      267
<RECOVERIES>                                        42
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,732
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,732
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>